Year 3? On to 2011.

[diehtc0ke]

I applied 3 times as well. I just accepted an offer from my top choice program (ranked within the top 5, if we place any weight in those things). My trajectory is pretty unusual in that I was a strong applicant from the very first round (top ten, ivy league PhD offers each time), but there's a nevertheless a noticeable difference in the results between my first and final rounds...and I think I've learned a lot from the process.

Following my professors' advice, I didn't pursue what seems like common methods for re-applicants this last round. I did not submit to conferences (I would have, but didn't have the time to invest in this), didn't contact professors, and didn't publish. The last point is controversial, but at least worth putting out there. My sense is that attitude in "top programs" towards publication privileges quality over quantity. My professors made it very clear that they would rather see me publish one or two very strong articles (during the course of my grad career, not in preparation for applications), placed at top journals than have a slew of essays of lower caliber. The overwhelming advice is that if my work isn't accepted by the top journals, I should take the criticism to heart and improve until I actually get to "that point." Part of the logic behind this advice that is once its out there, a publication will follow you around for the rest of your life, even if your work has mature well past that point. You want to make sure what's out there represents your best work, though it's obviously a balancing act since we are (hopefully) improving and growing constantly. Looking at the CV's of newly hired professors who recently acquired what I'd consider "dream jobs," I'm inclined to agree with this approach.

Consequently, I turned down a few publication opportunities (graduate journals, conference proceedings, etc)--the relatively "easier" line in my CV--in order to submit only to top journals. I haven't put in a submission yet, so I can't say how well this will turn out (though my adviser, who edits peer journals, is quite hopeful). I'm also sure that I will receive a few refusals before anyone picks up on this--but I'm hoping that the feedback will be useful in improving both the specific piece and my scholarship at large. I've been turned down by top journals in the past (with a different article), and while I finally decided to shelf that article, the sharp, even harsh feedback that I received was absolutely instrumental in shaping how I approached my work...and indirectly, at least partially responsible for my success this round. What I'm suggesting, I suppose, is to make sure that your focus is directed towards strengthening your scholarship (which is never wasted effort for an academic!) rather than strengthening your CV. The two are obviously not mutually exclusive, but thinking in terms of the former rather than the latter might cause you to adjust how to approach parts of the application.

My CV looks pretty paltry, and I knew that going into this process. My transcripts are solid, although the school name isn't impressive. But my writing improved monumentally, and that--undoubtedly--is what got me in. I'm told that I was accepted over students with numerous publications, conference, networking experience...but while those details do help to catch the eye of the ad-comms, they're paying far more attention to quality (and fit) over everything else.

I wish I could be this articulate about my own application process but I feel like your post sums it up to a certain extent. For what it's worth, I will be accepting an offer from a top 5 program as well (I haven't done so yet for a variety of reasons but my official acceptance of the offer will be posted in the mail before the end of the week). I can tell everyone for a fact that there was no part of my application that would be considered stellar except for the caliber of my writing, which is something that I have painstakingly paid attention to as my undergraduate career progressed. My grades were all right; my GRE scores left much to be desired; my CV took up maybe 3/4 of a page and was made up of a couple of small conferences I had been a part of and a couple of fellowships that I kind of haphazardly fell into in the past four years. I don't have a master's degree and my undergraduate institution was an urban public school known much more for its education programs and working class students than it is for churning out Ph.D bound students (though we do end up with a few every year). What really did it for me is that I took a year off after I finished undergrad. I sent out a few applications senior year but I was only able to come up with a rough draft of my honors senior thesis in progress as a writing sample and a vapid outlining of the work I wanted to in graduate school that was summed up by saying, "I intend to focus on the problematics of race" and "I might want to become an Orwellian scholar on the weekends" (what? these are actual quotes). Obviously I was rejected with what I can only imagine was extreme prejudice. This second time around I became firm in my stances and projected myself as a scholar. All I can say is read as much scholarship as you can as you wait to begin this next application cycle. Absorb it and let what you read become a part of who you are as a scholar. Reject that which you find unhelpful and embrace the styles and techniques that you find most engaging. Admissions committees want to be excited about your work and it's the most memorable applications that are most likely to get the nod of approval.

[manatee]

I fear I will be quite unpopular for this post.

I really wonder: Why do you keep applying? I can understand the "I love literature" thing, trying to avoid the real world, wanting meaningful work, intellectual stimulation, relative workplace autonomy, etc. The big problem is that getting a PhD just does not guarantee a job.  Getting a PhD for the sake of it seems incredibly short-sighted (unless of course you're independently wealthy). Top programs like Harvard, Princeton and Cornell are offering funding packages around $26-28k/year, which is far below the cost of living or comparative wage you would be making at another job. Most schools offer barely enough to keep you subsisting on Top Ramen. Take Michigan, for example, the highest stipend of all public uni's. $18k. I don't think you quite qualify for food stamps, but you're not far off from the income bracket that does. In other words, the PhD, although funded, is also a financial investment, and increasingly, only those from top programs see anything resembling a return on said "investment" when they leave.

From what I can now tell after a successful application season (and matriculation with extremely generous funding to an Ivy Comp Lit PhD), some people just "have it," to use the verbiage of one prominent DGS. Becoming a professor demands keen aptitude, flexibility, perserverance, and proven success in so many different professional capacities like writing, teaching, lecturing, even administrative politiking. It is simply not for everyone. Professors are trained to pick out those who can do it and separate those who cannot.

I think some of you might not be being so honest with yourselves. The numbers game (GPA/GRE) only mean so much. From what I was told by the schools I was admitted to, it was my writing sample and SOP that set me apart. They didn't mention my numbers--which were perfect--because they really don't matter so much.This is not to say that these potential Round-Three-ers are not smart. I'm sure you all are and I am not saying that sarcastically. It's just that there are only so many spots in the grad programs, and even fewer spots for graduates. And while you all may be competent writers and teachers, perhaps you are missing this "it" thing that sets you apart. This is not meant to be a criticism; it is intended for you to be very serious and honest with yourself about your abilities as a writer, thinker, and your potential for future scholarship. Perhaps your application materials read that you're applying "for lack of a better idea" when in fact they communicate your "amazing, original, innovative ideas."

It seems to me that a second try is understandable, but a third try is bordering on obsessive. You put yourself in a holding pattern waiting for that magical acceptance while you're wasting precious years of what should be your productive years working at unstable, temporary jobs instead of embarking on a career. Think twice, but perhaps not thrice.

[foppery]

On 4/6/2010 at 6:22 AM, manatee said:

I fear I will be quite unpopular for this post.

I really wonder: Why do you keep applying? I can understand the "I love literature" thing, trying to avoid the real world, wanting meaningful work, intellectual stimulation, relative workplace autonomy, etc. The big problem is that getting a PhD just does not guarantee a job.  Getting a PhD for the sake of it seems incredibly short-sighted (unless of course you're independently wealthy). Top programs like Harvard, Princeton and Cornell are offering funding packages around $26-28k/year, which is far below the cost of living or comparative wage you would be making at another job. Most schools offer barely enough to keep you subsisting on Top Ramen. Take Michigan, for example, the highest stipend of all public uni's. $18k. I don't think you quite qualify for food stamps, but you're not far off from the income bracket that does. In other words, the PhD, although funded, is also a financial investment, and increasingly, only those from top programs see anything resembling a return on said "investment" when they leave.

From what I can now tell after a successful application season (and matriculation with extremely generous funding to an Ivy Comp Lit PhD), some people just "have it," to use the verbiage of one prominent DGS. Becoming a professor demands keen aptitude, flexibility, perserverance, and proven success in so many different professional capacities like writing, teaching, lecturing, even administrative politiking. It is simply not for everyone. Professors are trained to pick out those who can do it and separate those who cannot.

I think some of you might not be being so honest with yourselves. The numbers game (GPA/GRE) only mean so much. From what I was told by the schools I was admitted to, it was my writing sample and SOP that set me apart. They didn't mention my numbers--which were perfect--because they really don't matter so much.This is not to say that these potential Round-Three-ers are not smart. I'm sure you all are and I am not saying that sarcastically. It's just that there are only so many spots in the grad programs, and even fewer spots for graduates. And while you all may be competent writers and teachers, perhaps you are missing this "it" thing that sets you apart. This is not meant to be a criticism; it is intended for you to be very serious and honest with yourself about your abilities as a writer, thinker, and your potential for future scholarship. Perhaps your application materials read that you're applying "for lack of a better idea" when in fact they communicate your "amazing, original, innovative ideas."

It seems to me that a second try is understandable, but a third try is bordering on obsessive. You put yourself in a holding pattern waiting for that magical acceptance while you're wasting precious years of what should be your productive years working at unstable, temporary jobs instead of embarking on a career. Think twice, but perhaps not thrice.

I agree with a few points you make, though not all. As someone who was accepted the first time around to three programs, I can't imagine the tenacity it takes to apply three years in a row, and more power to anyone willing to do that.

What you have to realize, though, is that not everyone on this forum WANTS an R1 job. That's not the only reason to get a PhD. What if you want to teach at a community college, or work at a university press? And it's not as if Ivy Leaguers are doing terribly well on the job market, either. The market sucks for absolutely everyone, including my brilliant friend who just finished his PhD at Columbia and can't find a tenure-track position anywhere. As for funding packages, my friends at state universities manage to make do: maybe they're not eating at Chez Panisse-caliber restaurants every night, but they're not subsisting on Top Ramen, either.

I do agree that people rejected two or three times from all the programs they apply to should be very honest with themselves--graduate work isn't for everyone. I agree that if you want a cushy tenure-track job at an Ivy or a nice liberal-arts college, you should consider the reputation of your program. I wish you had stopped there, because you make some good points that others might not have the courage to make or accept. But you weaken your argument with phrases like "matriculation with extremely generous funding to an Ivy Comp Lit PhD," "my numbers--which were perfect," and "the verbiage of one prominent DGS." It's odd that you couldn't offer candid advice--for the good of others, no doubt!--without boasting about your own success. That, not the advice itself, is what will make you unpopular for this post.

[manatee]

Nice reply, but I must respectfully disagree with your points. These fora are littered with posts obsessing over numbers (should I raise my GRE score by another 100 pts, is 3.7 GPA enough?). At the end of the day, ideally your numbers are perfect, but most importantly, you have to demonstrate creative thought, original scholarship (or the potential for) and a clear, persuasive writing style in your application documents. My comments about my own experience were not meant to brag but to offer practical advice. The people you're competing with at these schools HAVE perfect numbers, great LORs from distinguished scholars, publishable/published writing samples, and convincing, coherent, and compelling SOPs. I felt intimidated by the caliber of students I met at these interviews and visitation weekends. There are some remarkable students out there; an applicant has to know that in order to compete with them, they have to fulfill certain expectations, however arbitrary and flimsy they may be (namely GRE and GPA). In order to overcome not-so-perfect numbers, your originality and creativity really have to be there. That's all. And at this point, one has to start getting honest with oneself about the strength of an application based on these more subjective but very important criteria.

And a note about how people here don't want to work at R1 necessarily. I think it used to be true that students from universities of less-prestige used to easily get jobs in these kinds of places. Now, people from Harvard are taking those jobs at community colleges and university press editorial spots because tenure track is so scarce. Again, I really don't know how confident I am that a PhD from something out of the "Top 40" is going to do much for you professionally. I had more than one prof in college who said "don't bother" unless you get a spot at the top 10. I won't be that pessimistic, but we should be realistic here.

[Pamphilia]

I had more than one prof in college who said "don't bother" unless you get a spot at the top 10.

Ha. I heard that several times too. Having had this drilled into me, I sympathize with your point in many ways (I've often tried, poorly, to articulate parts of it myself). I especially agree that these aren't just R1 and prestigious SLAC jobs at stake--even at the so-called "low-tier" state school where I'm taking language classes, the English faculty consist almost entirely of PhDs from Stanford, Harvard, UVa, etc. But the argument that one must go to what I'll deem a "traditional top" English program (i.e., Yale, Harvard--you know, those guys) also seems a bit...I don't know...almost outdated to me? My impression is that since the job market is going through such a shake-up these days and since so many "top" PhDs (the new leaders of the literary academic community) are taking the only jobs they can get--which are not necessarily at the traditional top English programs--it is increasingly important who you've worked with rather than where you did your work. Obviously, one's mentors have always played a big part in one's career path, not to mention that a program with a well-established reputation will still help a body out an awful lot. But it really does seem to me that there is something of a metamorphosis occurring in (literary) academia right now, and it will be interesting to see how things turn out for our generation of scholars and the next once we're on the other side of the PhD. The placement rates of several "traditional top" programs have been really suffering in the past few years, and not just because of the recession. I suspect that this all has to do as much with the debate over "pre-professionalization" as it does with the economic crisis. I do agree with several of your points, Manatee, particularly those about career prospects (especially right now). But I suppose that my point here is that our idea of "high-caliber" programs--what constitutes one, what is their professional significance for newer PhDs--might well be changing, and in a substantial way.

[Medievalmaniac]

I really wonder: Why do you keep applying?

some people just "have it," to use the verbiage of one prominent DGS. Becoming a professor demands keen aptitude, flexibility, perserverance, and proven success in so many different professional capacities like writing, teaching, lecturing, even administrative politiking. It is simply not for everyone. Professors are trained to pick out those who can do it and separate those who cannot.

I think some of you might not be being so honest with yourselves. The numbers game (GPA/GRE) only mean so much. This is not to say that these potential Round-Three-ers are not smart. I'm sure you all are. It's just that there are only so many spots in the grad programs, and even fewer spots for graduates. And while you all may be competent writers and teachers, perhaps you are missing this "it" thing that sets you apart. This is not meant to be a criticism; it is intended for you to be very serious and honest with yourself about your abilities as a writer, thinker, and your potential for future scholarship.

It seems to me that a second try is understandable, but a third try is bordering on obsessive. You put yourself in a holding pattern waiting for that magical acceptance while you're wasting precious years of what should be your productive years working at unstable, temporary jobs instead of embarking on a career. Think twice, but perhaps not thrice.

I excerpted those elements of this post that are most pertinent to my response, in order to save space.

I just wanted to point out that there are a number of posts throughout this grad forum from people who applied for their third time this year and got into top programs. I'm not saying you are wrong, but clearly, there can be an argument for "bothering to apply" a third time, and plainly on this third try these individuals - who in some cases have been accepted at programs they unsuccessfully applied to before - made the cut. I imagine there are many others not affiliated with grad forum who also are in this happy situation this year after multiple unsuccessful rounds.

I don't necessarily think rejection - or even multiple rejections - means you are 'not really cut out for academics' - there are a lot of reasons for which people are not accepted in any given year. I had a Director of English Graduate Studies email me personally to tell me that any other year, I'd have probably been in; he was really sorry I didn't make the cut, and has asked if I plan to apply again next year. I had another director email me to tell me that nothing I have done will ever get me into her program. A third program had me on the waitlist for a long time before ultimately choosing not to extend the offer. I'm not sure how to reconcile those first two arguments, both of which came from schools closely ranked to one another in the top 15, except that every department and every cohort within the department is different - and an applicant who truly believes in him or herself and truly has what it takes to do a PhD will probably eventually find a PhD program to work in, should that end up being his or her ultimate choice.

I don't think it is unreasonable, provided that you are not grossly incompetent - to apply several times before finding yourself extended an offer of admission; certainly not when many departments are being flooded with hundreds more applications than they expected. I think it is admirable to hold fast to your dreams and to reach for your goals. In the meantime, between application rounds, rather than sitting around waiting for life, I think most people are working, taking classes, and so forth; those who plan to apply again are probably reviewing materials for exams, rewriting papers and/or SOPs, conferencing, and so forth. I don't think of this as being put on hold - I think of it as part of the life I have chosen to live. I imagine many others feel the same way.

Congratulations, though, on your accept! I'm sure it's a relief not to be among the many reapplying next year.

[strokeofmidnight]

I fear I will be quite unpopular for this post.

I really wonder: Why do you keep applying? I can understand the "I love literature" thing, trying to avoid the real world, wanting meaningful work, intellectual stimulation, relative workplace autonomy, etc. The big problem is that getting a PhD just does not guarantee a job. This is especially true of PhDs from lower ranked schools. And by "lower" ranked in the lit fields, I mean places like USC, BU, and Indiana Bloomington, not even places like South Carolina or Youngstown Ohio State. Getting a PhD for the sake of it seems incredibly short-sighted (unless of course you're independently wealthy). Top programs like Harvard, Princeton and Cornell are offering funding packages around $26-28k/year, which is far below the cost of living or comparative wage you would be making at another job. Most schools offer barely enough to keep you subsisting on Top Ramen. Take Michigan, for example, the highest stipend of all public uni's. $18k. I don't think you quite qualify for food stamps, but you're not far off from the income bracket that does. In other words, the PhD, although funded, is also a financial investment, and increasingly, only those from top programs see anything resembling a return on said "investment" when they leave.

From what I can now tell after a successful application season (and matriculation with extremely generous funding to an Ivy Comp Lit PhD), some people just "have it," to use the verbiage of one prominent DGS. Becoming a professor demands keen aptitude, flexibility, perserverance, and proven success in so many different professional capacities like writing, teaching, lecturing, even administrative politiking. It is simply not for everyone. Professors are trained to pick out those who can do it and separate those who cannot.

While there are some good advice here, I think you're mischaracterizing how much applicants know going into this process--especially those on this (and other such) forums. We know perfectly well what the job market looks like. We know that what the odds are. I don't think most of us are doing this out of ignorance, or an inflated sense of our own talent.

A bit of fact-checking might also be in order. Michigan doesn't have the highest stipend of the public universities. Aside from a handful of special fellowships, I'm pretty sure that honor belongs to Rutgers. Over the course of 3 years, I was accepted into 8 public schools--5 of which gave higher offers than the amount you named for Michigan. And the funding that you listed for Michigan, while accurate for some, isn't true across the broad. Finally, while 15-25K (the range of offers that I've seen) isn't incredibly generous, it *is* enough to live on without resorting to ramen--I've been doing it for two years. There's a smigeon of Ivy League elitism going on here, which I find to be a bit misleading. (For what it's worth, I also entertained 2 Ivy offers, and turned them down for a comparable offer from a public school).

I think you fairly accurately characterize what "it" entails, and that professors are indeed trained to pick which applications can show evidence of this elusive "it." The one thing that I would disagree with is that you seem to assume that one either "has it" or doesn't. I think that it is true that some graduate hopefuls don't "have it" and never will. And it's also true that some obviously "have it" even as undergrads. But many of us--and I'd put myself firmly in this camp--took a while to figure out what "it" is and to acquire it in time for grad school. Looking at my writings in undergrad (always a painful experience), it was pretty obvious that I was clueless, and would have had no chance of getting in anywhere. I choose not to apply that yet, but had I done so (as many applicants do--apply straight out of undergrad), I would have faced across-the-board rejections. I obviously didn't have it. I was fairly lucky during my first round--I did well, but frankly, I *still* barely had it either. It took two years for me to finally figure out what skills are actually needed for my scholarship, and finally begin to acquire those and put them together in a useful manner. I think many, if not most English PhD hopefuls can indeed acquire this elusive quality even if they didn't come out of undergrad with "it" under their belts already. This is, after all, what a good MA program would ideally prime one to acquire...though I think there's much to be said for independent scholarship.

Nice reply, but I must respectfully disagree with your points. These fora are littered with posts obsessing over numbers (should I raise my GRE score by another 100 pts, is 3.7 GPA enough?). At the end of the day, ideally your numbers are perfect, but most importantly, you have to demonstrate creative thought, original scholarship (or the potential for) and a clear, persuasive writing style in your application documents. My comments about my own experience were not meant to brag but to offer practical advice. The people you're competing with at these schools HAVE perfect numbers, great LORs from distinguished scholars, publishable/published writing samples, and convincing, coherent, and compelling SOPs. I felt intimidated by the caliber of students I met at these interviews and visitation weekends. There are some remarkable students out there; an applicant has to know that in order to compete with them, they have to fulfill certain expectations, however arbitrary and flimsy they may be (namely GRE and GPA). In order to overcome not-so-perfect numbers, your originality and creativity really have to be there. That's all. And at this point, one has to start getting honest with oneself about the strength of an application based on these more subjective but very important criteria.

Your description of the role that "numbers" play in the admission process is pretty accurate, I think--or at least, it correlates with my own experience. I also agree--and I've stated this many times--that applicants over-emphasize the importance of numbers and misdirect their energy. But virtually every "strong applicant" that I've encountered already knows this. They might be nervous that, say, a 400 on the Lit GRE might keep them out...but on some level, they understand that it's the writing that really counts.

[diehtc0ke]

Ha. I heard that several times too. Having had this drilled into me, I sympathize with your point in many ways (I've often tried, poorly, to articulate parts of it myself). I especially agree that these aren't just R1 and prestigious SLAC jobs at stake--even at the so-called "low-tier" state school where I'm taking language classes, the English faculty consist almost entirely of PhDs from Stanford, Harvard, UVa, etc. But the argument that one must go to what I'll deem a "traditional top" English program (i.e., Yale, Harvard--you know, those guys) also seems a bit...I don't know...almost outdated to me? My impression is that since the job market is going through such a shake-up these days and since so many "top" PhDs (the new leaders of the literary academic community) are taking the only jobs they can get--which are not necessarily at the traditional top English programs--it is increasingly important who you've worked with rather than where you did your work. Obviously, one's mentors have always played a big part in one's career path, not to mention that a program with a well-established reputation will still help a body out an awful lot. But it really does seem to me that there is something of a metamorphosis occurring in (literary) academia right now, and it will be interesting to see how things turn out for our generation of scholars and the next once we're on the other side of the PhD. The placement rates of several "traditional top" programs have been really suffering in the past few years, and not just because of the recession. I suspect that this all has to do as much with the debate over "pre-professionalization" as it does with the economic crisis. I do agree with several of your points, Manatee, particularly those about career prospects (especially right now). But I suppose that my point here is that our idea of "high-caliber" programs--what constitutes one, what is their professional significance for newer PhDs--might well be changing, and in a substantial way.

I think that the bolded part is true to a certain extent. Who you work with gives you access to scholars from other schools that you probably would not be able to get in touch with so easily. From what I've been told from undergraduate advisors and from many of the faculty that I've spoken with at the schools I've visited this past month, it is even more than just who you work with but what you work on and how well you do that work. Perhaps this was there way of trying to get me to go to their school when they knew I got into a school that was ranked higher, but I sincerely doubt it. I was told this even at the school that had probably the most well known scholar in my (sub-)subfield. You can do that work at schools that are not in the top 20 but it's going to be an uphill battle on an even steeper hill.

[manatee]

Thanks everyone for all of these interesting replies! If only the political message boards I post on were so friendly and productive...

I would like to return for a moment to the question of financial investment. We're obviously not going into this profession for the money, but it is of course a consideration.

I'm just going to go on my own experience here: people I personally know who are planning on going to grad school several years after college sort of flop around. That is not meant to be critical, because that is exactly what I did. I did a Fulbright and drank abroad for a year. Then I worked teaching English and several other strange unrelated jobs abroad. Does any of this relate to my profile as a scholar? No. Was it the smartest financial move? No--I spent all of my money sitting on the beach in Thailand and Italy. Now I'm 26, getting older, and if I hadn't gotten into grad school, I would be kind of pissed at myself for wasting several years of my potentially very productive years sitting at cafes in Europe instead of starting a career in earnest.

For me at least, knowing that I would be applying to grad school kind of made the jobs I've had in between the end of college and now not as serious as I might have otherwise taken them. I might have worked overtime to impress my bosses, networked more vigorously, started saving money for adult things like a house, etc. I always "knew" I would be going to grad school though, so I treated things a little differently than I otherwise would have. I don't think that's a bad thing--one should always be competent, but shouldn't always be so serious and committed about every little thing that comes along in life. What I do mean to communicate, however, is that applying to grad school year after year might put said student in a holding pattern in which years of productivity are being gambled for a coveted spot in the academe that might never come to fruition. Hell, even if the grad school does come to fruition, there is no guarantee that you will get a job.

I know this was a bad year for applying: apps were up at record numbers and number of spots were down across the board. But getting in is ALWAYS hard. Looks at Duke and Princeton's stats for English PhD from the past fifteen years--what is it, 4-8% get offered spots? I'm not so sure I would blame an unsuccessful app season on this economy. And I am not sure that I agree with going to the school where the master of your subfield resides. That helps, but it's the name that follows you around for the rest of your life. Americans love branding, and like it or not, profs coming from Harvard just have it easier. I thought about doing my PhD in France, but ultimately came back to apply in the US because that top American university branding, initiation, life-long affiliation--what have you--is powerful and financially marketable, no matter where you go in the world. I'm just being realistic.

[foppery]

I know this was a bad year for applying: apps were up at record numbers and number of spots were down across the board. But getting in is ALWAYS hard. Looks at Duke and Princeton's stats for English PhD from the past fifteen years--what is it, 4-8% get offered spots? I'm not so sure I would blame an unsuccessful app season on this economy. And I am not sure that I agree with going to the school where the master of your subfield resides. That helps, but it's the name that follows you around for the rest of your life. Americans love branding, and like it or not, profs coming from Harvard just have it easier. I thought about doing my PhD in France, but ultimately came back to apply in the US because that top American university branding, initiation, life-long affiliation--what have you--is powerful and financially marketable, no matter where you go in the world. I'm just being realistic.

Frankly, part of me agrees. A year ago, I turned down two Ivies for a (still very respectable) state school, and regretted my decision so much I reapplied to one of the Ivies, which took me again. So I'm going there this year, and though I feel like a bit of a sellout, I'm terrified of the nearly hopeless job market. There will always be brilliant people at lower-ranked programs, people who do well no matter the strength of their brand names. This I firmly believe. But those success stories are few and far between. And the fact is, I DO want a job at a respectable institution, preferably a liberal-arts college like the one I graduated from. Sometimes you have to sell out a little.

I hate myself for saying that.

And yeah, honestly, top grad programs have always been very selective. I do know people who would almost certainly have been accepted to certain programs if not for the economy, but the fact is, some might have been rejected no matter the year.

[intextrovert]

I'm just going to go on my own experience here: people I personally know who are planning on going to grad school several years after college sort of flop around. That is not meant to be critical, because that is exactly what I did. I did a Fulbright and drank abroad for a year. Then I worked teaching English and several other strange unrelated jobs abroad. Does any of this relate to my profile as a scholar? No. Was it the smartest financial move? No--I spent all of my money sitting on the beach in Thailand and Italy. Now I'm 26, getting older, and if I hadn't gotten into grad school, I would be kind of pissed at myself for wasting several years of my potentially very productive years sitting at cafes in Europe instead of starting a career in earnest.

Why, though? This is going a little off-topic, but do you actually regret going to Thailand or spending time people-watching in Paris, regardless of whether you had gotten into grad school? Money matters, but life is more than that. I really don't see anything wrong with drifting for a few years in your 20s, especially your early 20s, and especially if you're not going into debt. In fact, I think it can even be valuable. Even a lot of my friends who never planned on going to grad school "drifted" for a while after graduation, working abroad, doing fellowships, or waiting tables and writing. What's the rush towards the "adult" things? I know a lot of people who launched straight into the career track, and are now taking time to drift because they need it to figure out what they really want. You're only young and relatively free to be irresponsible for a limited amount of time. There are also tons of very successful people who didn't get anywhere until their 30s or so. My cousin, for example, in his 40s, now a high-powered PR guy in NYC with his own firm, drifted and was totally directionless for a long time (at 29, he was unemployed and sleeping on an air mattress). So to me there is nothing wrong with having no idea about your future, and keeping grad school as an option doesn't seem detrimental to that.

I think you're assuming everyone has the same sort of vision for the future. I did start down the "career" path, working in publishing at a major house in NYC, but hated it. HATED it. I could do it, I could have worked up the corporate ladder, but I would have hated my life. So I decided to start teaching high school. Again, I could easily do this and probably be fairly content, but I've always wanted to be a professor and really miss producing my own scholarship. So I'm going back to grad school, and will likely be attending either a top-20 program or possibly top-10 program (still have some waitlist issues to sort out), though last time I applied I was rejected across the board. So as for your idea of "having it," I agree with you up to a point, but it's just not deterministic like that. My profs in undergrad told me I "had it," but that didn't stop me from getting rejected my first round. I needed time to mature as a scholar, and my undergrad institution, an elite SLAC, really hadn't exposed me to any kind of critical or theoretical discourse (as in, I didn't even really know that existed to a large degree, much less how to insert myself in it). I needed time to catch up. So yes, while I agree that to be a successful scholar you do have to have some natural aptitude/personal qualities, that "it" factor, inasmuch as admissions committees or anyone else can predict, is much more fluid and malleable than you seem to suggest.

I'm under no illusion that I'll definitely have a job waiting for me when I come out, but the alternative is what? Working up the corporate ladder in a job I can, at best, tolerate? I don't have those ambitions. More likely I'd just continue teaching high school, which I can do when I get out of grad school if I can't find a TT job, and which having a PhD will qualify me for more money to do (especially at the good private schools). And I will have spent 6 or so years of my life doing work that is meaningful and valuable to me, and teaching. AND I'll have a shot (in the dark?) at that dream job and making it big in the only world I would care about making it big in. AND I won't even have debt. That's worth it to me.

My point is not that everyone has these specific paths, but that there are lots of paths and that different people have been given different opportunities at different times and have different visions of their futures. But it's unfair to assume that because they don't have the same vision or the same opportunities as you, they are less informed or making a stupid choice by re-applying or applying to programs out of the top 20 or so - it does come off as elitist. I think strokeofmidnight is right in that people are more informed than you give them credit for.

Edited April 7, 2010 by intextrovert

[Strong Flat White]

Thanks everyone for all of these interesting replies! If only the political message boards I post on were so friendly and productive...

I would like to return for a moment to the question of financial investment. We're obviously not going into this profession for the money, but it is of course a consideration.

I'm just going to go on my own experience here: people I personally know who are planning on going to grad school several years after college sort of flop around. That is not meant to be critical, because that is exactly what I did. I did a Fulbright and drank abroad for a year. Then I worked teaching English and several other strange unrelated jobs abroad. Does any of this relate to my profile as a scholar? No. Was it the smartest financial move? No--I spent all of my money sitting on the beach in Thailand and Italy. Now I'm 26, getting older, and if I hadn't gotten into grad school, I would be kind of pissed at myself for wasting several years of my potentially very productive years sitting at cafes in Europe instead of starting a career in earnest.

For me at least, knowing that I would be applying to grad school kind of made the jobs I've had in between the end of college and now not as serious as I might have otherwise taken them. I might have worked overtime to impress my bosses, networked more vigorously, started saving money for adult things like a house, etc. I always "knew" I would be going to grad school though, so I treated things a little differently than I otherwise would have. I don't think that's a bad thing--one should always be competent, but shouldn't always be so serious and committed about every little thing that comes along in life. What I do mean to communicate, however, is that applying to grad school year after year might put said student in a holding pattern in which years of productivity are being gambled for a coveted spot in the academe that might never come to fruition. Hell, even if the grad school does come to fruition, there is no guarantee that you will get a job.

I know this was a bad year for applying: apps were up at record numbers and number of spots were down across the board. But getting in is ALWAYS hard. Looks at Duke and Princeton's stats for English PhD from the past fifteen years--what is it, 4-8% get offered spots? I'm not so sure I would blame an unsuccessful app season on this economy. And I am not sure that I agree with going to the school where the master of your subfield resides. That helps, but it's the name that follows you around for the rest of your life. Americans love branding, and like it or not, profs coming from Harvard just have it easier. I thought about doing my PhD in France, but ultimately came back to apply in the US because that top American university branding, initiation, life-long affiliation--what have you--is powerful and financially marketable, no matter where you go in the world. I'm just being realistic.

Manatee, I've enjoyed this thread and your honesty and your willingness to put an unpopular post out there. I think it is a necessary check that we must all go through. That said, I've just gotta weigh in here:

For my first point, other people have already stated it well enough: we know. Ha! What an understatement! How well do we know! Much too much, I'd say. From what I can tell, the level of perspective throughout these boards is more than admirable. I really do believe that only a very small percentage of applicants in this community are ignorant or negligent, and we're all taking this on fully aware of the odds and risks and assuming responsibility for it. I take full responsibility for my broke ass and I'm not asking you or anyone else to pay my Stafford loans (assuming, of course, that I'm not independently wealthy ).

For my second point, I will admit to being somewhat annoyed by what smacks not only of what someone else called "elitism," but in your case specifically, it reeks of a very American elitism (you mention it yourself when you talk about the American love for branding, but rather than bring your international perspective to bear, you play what you seem to admit is a broken game). You've been abroad, and normally, I would congratulate you. This is the field I currently work in (sending students abroad for undergrad study abroad programs), and we like to pretend that the experience is, well, meaningful. Personally, the way you describe your time abroad is a little offensive to me. I can appreciate your viewpoint that this time spent overseas was not, perhaps, the most productive, and you're probably right. Certainly some experiences are more meaningful than others, I can't very well say that YOU did or did not find meaning in it all. But surely not all is a complete waste?! Yikes! Ouch! Speaking for myself, and I suspect for many others, time spent drinking on a Fulbright, teaching English, or spending money on Italian or Thai beaches is far from a waste. I can look you in the eye and tell you that I have squandered like the Prodigal Son abroad, and yet I found profound meaning in it. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that I'd never trade my unproductive, wasteful years abroad for anything (not even a PhD acceptance w/ full funding!). You admit that things shouldn't be taken so seriously, but your honesty/reality check for us all is not so tempered.

Now there is the issue of insecurity: for some of us, grad school may "never come to fruition. Hell, even if the grad school does come to fruition, there is no guarantee that you will get a job." And, again, you admit that most people aren't in this field for financial reasons (and if they are, they sure as hell shouldn't be!). Agreed. Of course. No kidding. But again, we all know this, and your unpopularity is the decidedly non-tempered-ness of your message. What it comes down to, I think, is a difference in worldview. You seem to be operating on a life philosophy that will productively maximize all your returns, at least as well as you can conceivably predict, but you're forgetting the other side of humanity that trades these rational calculations for (in our eyes) a far more important calculation, which is the peace of mind of knowing, once it's all said and done, what might have been. In other words (and I'm a family man), it comes down to a very realistic look at the bleakness of prospects and saying, "I'm going to find out." My wife and I are therefore prepared for "years of lost productivity" and even, ultimately, a less-than-ideal career, because there's no way (in this scenario) that I'll be in my current post in 20 years, relatively comfortably, wondering, "what if?" I'd rather be mopping floors in my 60's knowing that I couldn't have done anything else to make my dreams happen, than be doing the comfortable and secure and on the whole very good administrative work that I'm currently doing, all the while having some faint idea that something bigger and better is out there for me if I only had the - forgive my vulgate - balls to go after it. (And, speaking of "it" - creativity is certainly a key component of "it," but so are balls. I applaud our ballsy repeat applicants!)

Clearly, that is very idealistic (and offensively gendered!), but... well, what are dream-chasers and English majors if not ballsy idealists?! Come on, man! We run a serious risk of calling a kettle black, I do fear! And, I'm pretty sure that idealism in this day and age among such a community need not exclude the realism that you mention. Now, you may say, all very well and good. Chase your dreams once, chase them twice, but your point is not to do so ad infinitum. Agreed, but that point at which you say, "ok, I gave it my best shot and now I need to mop floors and support a family and do my reading and writing as a hobby," is going to be a very personal and individual choice, and I don't think anyone here is ill-informed about it. How do you say it's 2 rounds for one person and not 5 rounds for the 60-year old who spends another 20 years in complete vocational fulfillment and contributing greatly to what (s)he loves?! The 3-times rule is crazy (I'm just going to say it - crazy), especially given that we have posters here saying that they got in! All the ballsier for them that they stuck it out for this long, and my money is on them - not the people who get in on round 1 or who give up - living their dreams and full lives. They are the ones who know what they have... way beyond your American rationalism, they will know value much more intimately.

But... Manatee is right, I suppose. It's all about your values, and if you want your best shot at security and comfort, then dear God, jump ship now! I will be among the non-20-somethings, going for it in the late rounds, despite my better judgment. So help us all!

[flynnkc]

I'm just being realistic.

Seriously, you gotta stop saying that. It hurts your argument every time.

[littlenell08]

Manatee, I've enjoyed this thread and your honesty and your willingness to put an unpopular post out there. I think it is a necessary check that we must all go through. That said, I've just gotta weigh in here:

For my first point, other people have already stated it well enough: we know. Ha! What an understatement! How well do we know! Much too much, I'd say. From what I can tell, the level of perspective throughout these boards is more than admirable. I really do believe that only a very small percentage of applicants in this community are ignorant or negligent, and we're all taking this on fully aware of the odds and risks and assuming responsibility for it. I take full responsibility for my broke ass and I'm not asking you or anyone else to pay my Stafford loans (assuming, of course, that I'm not independently wealthy ).

For my second point, I will admit to being somewhat annoyed by what smacks not only of what someone else called "elitism," but in your case specifically, it reeks of a very American elitism (you mention it yourself when you talk about the American love for branding, but rather than bring your international perspective to bear, you play what you seem to admit is a broken game). You've been abroad, and normally, I would congratulate you. This is the field I currently work in (sending students abroad for undergrad study abroad programs), and we like to pretend that the experience is, well, meaningful. Personally, the way you describe your time abroad is a little offensive to me. I can appreciate your viewpoint that this time spent overseas was not, perhaps, the most productive, and you're probably right. Certainly some experiences are more meaningful than others, I can't very well say that YOU did or did not find meaning in it all. But surely not all is a complete waste?! Yikes! Ouch! Speaking for myself, and I suspect for many others, time spent drinking on a Fulbright, teaching English, or spending money on Italian or Thai beaches is far from a waste. I can look you in the eye and tell you that I have squandered like the Prodigal Son abroad, and yet I found profound meaning in it. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that I'd never trade my unproductive, wasteful years abroad for anything (not even a PhD acceptance w/ full funding!). You admit that things shouldn't be taken so seriously, but your honesty/reality check for us all is not so tempered.

Now there is the issue of insecurity: for some of us, grad school may "never come to fruition. Hell, even if the grad school does come to fruition, there is no guarantee that you will get a job." And, again, you admit that most people aren't in this field for financial reasons (and if they are, they sure as hell shouldn't be!). Agreed. Of course. No kidding. But again, we all know this, and your unpopularity is the decidedly non-tempered-ness of your message. What it comes down to, I think, is a difference in worldview. You seem to be operating on a life philosophy that will productively maximize all your returns, at least as well as you can conceivably predict, but you're forgetting the other side of humanity that trades these rational calculations for (in our eyes) a far more important calculation, which is the peace of mind of knowing, once it's all said and done, what might have been. In other words (and I'm a family man), it comes down to a very realistic look at the bleakness of prospects and saying, "I'm going to find out." My wife and I are therefore prepared for "years of lost productivity" and even, ultimately, a less-than-ideal career, because there's no way (in this scenario) that I'll be in my current post in 20 years, relatively comfortably, wondering, "what if?" I'd rather be mopping floors in my 60's knowing that I couldn't have done anything else to make my dreams happen, than be doing the comfortable and secure and on the whole very good administrative work that I'm currently doing, all the while having some faint idea that something bigger and better is out there for me if I only had the - forgive my vulgate - balls to go after it. (And, speaking of "it" - creativity is certainly a key component of "it," but so are balls. I applaud our ballsy repeat applicants!)

Clearly, that is very idealistic (and offensively gendered!), but... well, what are dream-chasers and English majors if not ballsy idealists?! Come on, man! We run a serious risk of calling a kettle black, I do fear! And, I'm pretty sure that idealism in this day and age among such a community need not exclude the realism that you mention. Now, you may say, all very well and good. Chase your dreams once, chase them twice, but your point is not to do so ad infinitum. Agreed, but that point at which you say, "ok, I gave it my best shot and now I need to mop floors and support a family and do my reading and writing as a hobby," is going to be a very personal and individual choice, and I don't think anyone here is ill-informed about it. How do you say it's 2 rounds for one person and not 5 rounds for the 60-year old who spends another 20 years in complete vocational fulfillment and contributing greatly to what (s)he loves?! The 3-times rule is crazy (I'm just going to say it - crazy), especially given that we have posters here saying that they got in! All the ballsier for them that they stuck it out for this long, and my money is on them - not the people who get in on round 1 or who give up - living their dreams and full lives. They are the ones who know what they have... way beyond your American rationalism, they will know value much more intimately.

But... Manatee is right, I suppose. It's all about your values, and if you want your best shot at security and comfort, then dear God, jump ship now! I will be among the non-20-somethings, going for it in the late rounds, despite my better judgment. So help us all!

This made me dance a little bit on the inside. And on the outside.

[manatee]

Nice reply. I might have been living in the German-speaking world for too long. I'm accustomed to frankness, bluntness, and saying things so directly that they are considered rude by American standards. Someone told me the other day that I for example, could stand to lose 5kg (I live in Berlin). Out of the blue. There is no malice behind it; it's just a frankness of expression that Americans are unaccustomed to.

I've taught in the German and Korean educational systems; it is not uncommon (it is in fact commonplace) to tell the students exactly where they stand. This includes failing them and telling them that their dreams--as they stand at the moment--may be completely unrealistic and unattainable. There is not so much an appreciation, or even an awareness, of the snowflake syndrome that seems to plague American educational systems (or maybe that was just my experience at Kaplan!). This of course does not mean that these students cannot one day become a doctor, but their credentials and so on are not where they need to be. I had to adjust to these expectations. In my training, a bad student got a C in America. In Germany, they fail outright. I kind of prefer the latter. I would rather know where I stand, without sugar-coating it.

Of course I have gained so much from living abroad and the only reason I am coming back is because of the offer. As soon as I'm done, I'll leave again. I don't want to go into all of the soul-enriching and perspective-widening things that traveling/working/living abroad has done for me here. Drifting abroad has not really helped my C/V aside from teaching experiences, but it has been a personally-enriching--which is tolerated by the academe moreso than the business world. Working on an organic farm for three months? Which boss at Random House or Novartis is going to find this compelling?

One thing I do know about myself, however, is that I don't particularly enjoy struggling for material things like a job or money. Who does? My position going into this whole app process was Ivy/Top 20 or bust. I understand that some don't want that, or are prepared to struggle more than I am. I don't think there is anything wrong with opportunism, either, and those who reap the successes of their efforts and calculated risks just know how to work the system, however busted it is. Getting into these schools requires having all of your proverbial ducks in a row. Everyone on this forum who got in somewhere had success working the system--let's be honest. I'm not convinced that Harvard offers a better education than Indiana, but the name really helps! My most amazing undergrad prof had a PhD from a program in the 100s and she was amazing, did amazing work, and taught at an excellent, top ranked university. There are those anecdotal stories out there, but I'd personally rather not take the risk.

However brilliant you may be, Berkeley or Columbia or whatever top university behind you turbo-charges your C/V and will help float you through tough times. People have different dreams and different goals of course. I'm just suggesting that people be honest with themselves. If after some soul searching (which the application process really encourages), you still want to do it, then go for it! I'm not trying to stop you. I'm just questioning, which is never a bad idea

[intextrovert]

Nice reply. I might have been living in the German-speaking world for too long. I'm accustomed to frankness, bluntness, and saying things so directly that they are considered rude by American standards. Someone told me the other day that I for example, could stand to lose 5kg (I live in Berlin). Out of the blue. There is no malice behind it; it's just a frankness of expression that Americans are unaccustomed to.

I've taught in the German and Korean educational systems; it is not uncommon (it is in fact commonplace) to tell the students exactly where they stand. This includes failing them and telling them that their dreams--as they stand at the moment--may be completely unrealistic and unattainable. There is not so much an appreciation, or even an awareness, of the snowflake syndrome that seems to plague American educational systems (or maybe that was just my experience at Kaplan!). This of course does not mean that these students cannot one day become a doctor, but their credentials and so on are not where they need to be. I had to adjust to these expectations. In my training, a bad student got a C in America. In Germany, they fail outright. I kind of prefer the latter. I would rather know where I stand, without sugar-coating it.

Of course I have gained so much from living abroad and the only reason I am coming back is because of the offer. As soon as I'm done, I'll leave again. I don't want to go into all of the soul-enriching and perspective-widening things that traveling/working/living abroad has done for me here. Drifting abroad has not really helped my C/V aside from teaching experiences, but it has been a personally-enriching--which is tolerated by the academe moreso than the business world. Working on an organic farm for three months? Which boss at Random House or Novartis is going to find this compelling?

One thing I do know about myself, however, is that I don't particularly enjoy struggling for material things like a job or money. Who does? My position going into this whole app process was Ivy/Top 20 or bust. I understand that some don't want that, or are prepared to struggle more than I am. I don't think there is anything wrong with opportunism, either, and those who reap the successes of their efforts and calculated risks just know how to work the system, however busted it is. Getting into these schools requires having all of your proverbial ducks in a row. Everyone on this forum who got in somewhere had success working the system--let's be honest. I'm not convinced that Harvard offers a better education than Indiana, but the name really helps! My most amazing undergrad prof had a PhD from a program in the 100s and she was amazing, did amazing work, and taught at an excellent, top ranked university. There are those anecdotal stories out there, but I'd personally rather not take the risk.

However brilliant you may be, Berkeley or Columbia or whatever top university behind you turbo-charges your C/V and will help float you through tough times. People have different dreams and different goals of course. I'm just suggesting that people be honest with themselves. If after some soul searching (which the application process really encourages), you still want to do it, then go for it! I'm not trying to stop you. I'm just questioning, which is never a bad idea

Agreed, it is never a bad idea, and everyone going into this needs to know exactly what sorts of odds they are facing, especially in lower-ranked programs. And I really am glad you brought your German-inspired bluntness (this also happens in Vietnam - my friend living there was first told she was too skinny and then later, "You're getting so fat and white!") to the question. These are doubts we've all had at some point, but arguing against them reinforces for me why I made the choices I have, like reapplying this year. Believe me, teaching high school seniors at a private school has made me pretty weary of the snowflake syndrome and general sense of entitlement. If another of my kids complains that they shouldn't have gotten a D because they tried their hardest, I'm going to vomit. But again, your assumption is that that is what is necessarily at work here - that you are the truth-teller (the ACTUAL special snowflake!) and the rest of us are just living-in-illusions snowflakes. It's not the question itself that is problematic, but the implication of judgment and, more than anything, ironically, a sense of that very entitlement itself lurking underneath the surface of your posts!

I think essentially we all agree and are well-aware that more prestigious schools will open more doors (though why are you hatin' on Indiana? It's juuust barely out of the top 20, and from what I understand, for Victorian lit it could hold its own with much higher-ranked schools). The quibble most of us have, though, is the assumption that if you are not lucky enough to be accepted into the top 20 (and are we really putting this much stock into US News and its 35% reply rate surveys?), it's a stupid move and not worth it to go. That's where the "worldview, different goals," etc. stuff comes in. A little self-reflection is a good thing to call for, but I mostly take issue with the assumption that if these people actually self-reflected, no one in their right mind would go to BU or Rice or re-apply, because that's what YOU would decide. Give people some credit - we're all adults here. Consider the possibility of a different value system. And seriously, when I say "different" that's not bullsh*t sugar-coated snowflake talk for "lower" or "worse." It's just different.

You're right that you'll have a better shot of getting a nice job at an Ivy, but as foppery points out with his/her anecdote, even that's not a guarantee. Pots and kettles, remember! This is not a very practical or financially smart move for any of us, even if you're going to Harvard. At any rate, yes, it's never a bad idea to question yourself and whether this is really the right way to go. The problem comes in judging each other, or thinking that because you've had the opportunities and, I would daresay, luck (and with these odds, I do consider my success this round to be partly due to luck), you're charmed. So I would say, ask yourself the same question! If, after you get your Ivy Comp Lit Ph.D., you can't get a TT job, will it have been worth it to you? If the answer is no, well, I might ask the same of you that you've been asking of others here: reflect.

As long as we're characterizing entire cultures, the nice thing about the American perspective is that ostensibly it's open to different viewpoints and backgrounds, whereas this other, harsher one assumes that its own standard is the only standard that exists. I mean, hell, I'm going to produce the best work I can at my top-25/top-20/top-10 (gah get me off these waitlists!) program and try to meet that sort of standard, but I'm aware that if I don't, I will be meeting more personal standards of success. Snowflakes!

Edited April 7, 2010 by intextrovert

[Strong Flat White]

... I'm just questioning, which is never a bad idea

Well, that's tremendous, Manatee, that you've jettisoned your judgmental, elitist bewilderment at all the lowly losers for a culturally-driven paradigm that simply asks honest questions! But let me remind you how you began things. It began thusly: "I really wonder: Why do you keep applying?"

That's a bit more than blunt or direct; it has implications. It is, in fact, rhetorical. Rhetoric like that is much more pointed than non-rhetorical conversation ("you need to lose some weight"), in my opinion. (Let's be honest! Let's be realist!) Conversely, I think you're right to juxtapose American sugarcoating/snowflake syndrome to other cultural/educational systems... to a point. It's a valid observation, certainly. It is, as you might say, based in reality. The only reason I'm confused is that I haven't actually seen any sugarcoating in reply/rebuttal to your original inquiry. Oh, there's plenty of it in America, and there's plenty of it on www.thegradecafe.com - right you are. But I don't think there was a shred of it in reply to your question... why do you keep applying? Nobody has said, "I'm special if only they'll look at me!" What they've said is, "I'm going to work harder to try to address my weaknesses; I'm going to try to find 'it.'" That's a happy aspect of American (or other) optimism. I don't think that non-Americans balk at a good rolling-up-the-sleeves to tap the elbow grease. Hard work is not special treatment...

... I think that hard work is, to use the philosophers' parlance, "necessary but not sufficient," so you're definitely right to be asking what (in addition to hard work) suffices. If the best we can come up with is, "it," then I think we can agree that it is an unanswerable question.

But to your original, barbed question - why do you keep applying? - we've answered the question rather soundly. There is a projectile "to each his own" kernel popping around the paper bag of this buttery discussion, on both sides of the worldview divide. It is, in fact, delicate, no matter how Germanic or Asian you'd like to be about it. So, then, it is to be respectful disagreement? You have, Manatee, been answered.

[soxpuppet]

Well, for a while there we weren't doing too bad a job keeping this debate productive and congenial. Cool. But let's look back at the original issue. What advice would you give to someone debating whether or not to reapply in terms of strategies for self-assessment? There have been many admonitions, "assess yourself honestly!" and many indignant rebuttals, "I *am* being honest with myself!" But shouting nosce te ipsum isn't really sufficient, is it? What qualities make a successful reapplicant? what makes an unsuccessful one? The most basic, blunt advice I would give would be not to reapply until you know what you did wrong on your previous application and know how to fix it - or to phrase it more positively, reapply when you can point to specific ways you are a stronger applicant today than you were when you first applied. What did you learn from your unsuccessful round? Do you know why you didn't get in? If you can't answer, you're probably not ready.

Beyond the fact that it was a hellish season for everyone and I understand luck played a role, on the other side, I can look back at my acceptances and rejections and give some pretty strong reasons as to why I was not accepted at the schools that didn't accept me. I can see why those schools were not a strong fit.

Let me think about the successful reapplicants I know, online and in person. Several applied straight out of undergrad and just plain weren't ready and needed time off to mature. Several applied, decided they had significant gaps in their undergrad education or lacked sufficient research experience and did MAs before continuing to PhD programs. Some realized they had applied without sufficient focus in their application materials, revised and crafted a more detailed project, and successfully reapplied. A couple people I know applied, learned from the process that they had applied in a slightly incompatible discipline, and switched fields (to Comp Lit, Women's Studies, Rhet Comp, Visual Studies, whatever). Some aimed for high ranked schools without consideration for where they would be a good fit, and rectified this oversight in their next round. But in all these cases, the applicants could point to what they did better this time around.

My potentially unpopular opinion would be, if you look at your unsuccessful application and either can't think of any significant improvements to make or can't see why you weren't accepted with the materials as they stand, that would be a good sign you're not ready to reapply yet.

Applying isn't only about knowing yourself. It's also about knowing the profession, and knowing the people who are going to read your application. The application process is really just a weirdly structured dialogue over the course of which the applicant and the program come to an agreement about potential and fit. As with any dialogue, there are no absolute qualities to measure, but successful conversation depends upon both self- and other-knowledge. You're not trying to impress them, you're making overtures to a relationship.

[Historiogaffe]

That's a bit more than blunt or direct; it has implications. It is, in fact, rhetorical. Rhetoric like that is much more pointed than non-rhetorical conversation ("you need to lose some weight"), in my opinion.

This entire debate over manatee's ethos seems a bit like it's ready to be over, but I have to jump in, briefly and semi-unrelatedly, as a defender of rhetoric.

If rhetoric is the art/science of persuasion, then "You need to lose some weight" is as rhetorical a statement as any – the hypothetical speaker's trying to persuade the object of his or her speech to lose weight. We also shouldn't assume that a direct statement – "You need to do this" – is necessarily a truthful and honest one. Whatever issue we take with manatee's rhetoric, let's not say all rhetoric is evil! (Or everyone who ever speaks or writes anything would have to be evil as well...*) While we tend to give rhetoric a bad rap, the reality is that accusing someone of using rhetoric is a bit like accusing them of using diction.

*cue maniacal laughter

Aaannd, exit nerdy non sequitur.

[PaperChaser]

Nice reply. I might have been living in the German-speaking world for too long. I'm accustomed to frankness, bluntness, and saying things so directly that they are considered rude by American standards. Someone told me the other day that I for example, could stand to lose 5kg (I live in Berlin). Out of the blue. There is no malice behind it; it's just a frankness of expression that Americans are unaccustomed to.

I've taught in the German and Korean educational systems; it is not uncommon (it is in fact commonplace) to tell the students exactly where they stand. This includes failing them and telling them that their dreams--as they stand at the moment--may be completely unrealistic and unattainable. There is not so much an appreciation, or even an awareness, of the snowflake syndrome that seems to plague American educational systems (or maybe that was just my experience at Kaplan!). This of course does not mean that these students cannot one day become a doctor, but their credentials and so on are not where they need to be. I had to adjust to these expectations. In my training, a bad student got a C in America. In Germany, they fail outright. I kind of prefer the latter. I would rather know where I stand, without sugar-coating it.

Of course I have gained so much from living abroad and the only reason I am coming back is because of the offer. As soon as I'm done, I'll leave again. I don't want to go into all of the soul-enriching and perspective-widening things that traveling/working/living abroad has done for me here. Drifting abroad has not really helped my C/V aside from teaching experiences, but it has been a personally-enriching--which is tolerated by the academe moreso than the business world. Working on an organic farm for three months? Which boss at Random House or Novartis is going to find this compelling?

One thing I do know about myself, however, is that I don't particularly enjoy struggling for material things like a job or money. Who does? My position going into this whole app process was Ivy/Top 20 or bust. I understand that some don't want that, or are prepared to struggle more than I am. I don't think there is anything wrong with opportunism, either, and those who reap the successes of their efforts and calculated risks just know how to work the system, however busted it is. Getting into these schools requires having all of your proverbial ducks in a row. Everyone on this forum who got in somewhere had success working the system--let's be honest. I'm not convinced that Harvard offers a better education than Indiana, but the name really helps! My most amazing undergrad prof had a PhD from a program in the 100s and she was amazing, did amazing work, and taught at an excellent, top ranked university. There are those anecdotal stories out there, but I'd personally rather not take the risk.

However brilliant you may be, Berkeley or Columbia or whatever top university behind you turbo-charges your C/V and will help float you through tough times. People have different dreams and different goals of course. I'm just suggesting that people be honest with themselves. If after some soul searching (which the application process really encourages), you still want to do it, then go for it! I'm not trying to stop you. I'm just questioning, which is never a bad idea

Wow. Well, I'm sure you have some good points. I personally don't see them, but I'm-by your standards-of such low intelligence and have such inferior qualifications that my perspective not only doesn't matter, it probably doesn't exist. So I'll direct my opinion to the other people who, like me, applied numerous times. Some of us applied and were rejected more than once to the LOWEST TIER SCHOOLS. Some of us got accepted eventually to lower or middle tier schools and are ECSTATIC to have the opportunity to participate in the pursuit of a PhD regardless of how much time it takes, how little the jobs (should we "bottom feeders" be so lucky to even be considered for them!) pay, how little history may remember us, whatever.

For some people, having a chance to be in a community where knowledge and learning is valued is INTRINSICALLY valuable. Some of us CHOSE programs that aren't "prestigious" because they had something else to offer (i.e. high job placement rates-yes, outside the top 20!). Some chose programs close to home because we AREN'T 26. Some of us aren't planning to be tenure track professors.

To me, saying that not going to a "top" school (and I mean "top" by your standards, not mine) is pointless. Some people who don't go to top schools don't get jobs; some people who go to top schools don't get jobs either. Some people apply once to top schools and get in; some people have to try multiple times to get into unranked programs. Some people will be miserable anywhere they go, no matter how prestigious the school. Some people will be happy just to be IN school. People are so different that an Ivy PhD doesn't guarantee you a job because someone else with a mediocre degree may have other qualifications that are "superior" for a certain job, like great course evaluations, a really interesting area of study, or (gasp) an inspirational personality.

Sometimes it's not about a job or a seal of approval from a certain school. Some of us are the educational equivalents of Brad Stevens (who started as a volunteer coaching at Butler, in case you didn't follow the NCAA tournament)-we keep at it for the love of the sport, and maybe, just maybe, one day we'll be eye to eye with the most formidable leaders in our fields in ways that no one would have ever expected.

"Top," for me at least, is subjective.

[PaperChaser]

Wow. Well, I'm sure you have some good points. I personally don't see them, but I'm-by your standards-of such low intelligence and have such inferior qualifications that my perspective not only doesn't matter, it probably doesn't exist. So I'll direct my opinion to the other people who, like me, applied numerous times. Some of us applied and were rejected more than once to the LOWEST TIER SCHOOLS. Some of us got accepted eventually to lower or middle tier schools and are ECSTATIC to have the opportunity to participate in the pursuit of a PhD regardless of how much time it takes, how little the jobs (should we "bottom feeders" be so lucky to even be considered for them!) pay, how little history may remember us, whatever.

For some people, having a chance to be in a community where knowledge and learning is valued is INTRINSICALLY valuable. Some of us CHOSE programs that aren't "prestigious" because they had something else to offer (i.e. high job placement rates-yes, outside the top 20!). Some chose programs close to home because we AREN'T 26. Some of us aren't planning to be tenure track professors.

To me, saying that not going to a "top" school (and I mean "top" by your standards, not mine) is pointless. Some people who don't go to top schools don't get jobs; some people who go to top schools don't get jobs either. Some people apply once to top schools and get in; some people have to try multiple times to get into unranked programs. Some people will be miserable anywhere they go, no matter how prestigious the school. Some people will be happy just to be IN school. People are so different that an Ivy PhD doesn't guarantee you a job because someone else with a mediocre degree may have other qualifications that are "superior" for a certain job, like great course evaluations, a really interesting area of study, or (gasp) an inspirational personality.

Sometimes it's not about a job or a seal of approval from a certain school. Some of us are the educational equivalents of Brad Stevens (who started as a volunteer coaching at Butler, in case you didn't follow the NCAA tournament)-we keep at it for the love of the sport, and maybe, just maybe, one day we'll be eye to eye with the most formidable leaders in our fields in ways that no one would have ever expected.

"Top," for me at least, is subjective.

I apologize if that was a bitchy reply. I just don't appreciate someone pissing in my Cheerios, because I was pretty dang happy to get into 4 schools I did. It may not be Manatee's dream "accomplishment," but it was MINE. So I'm going to go be happy for myself and anyone else who got what they wanted through persistence!

[rtrgwnd]

If you want to get a freakin' PhD in English, and you can afford it, either through funding or some other means, do it. And if it takes you three times, or four or five or ten times, and you have the stamina and persistence to keep going, then good for you. You're obsessive. You're outrageous. You can apply as many times as you want to. Who cares? And if you can't get into the top schools, or the top top schools, or the top low schools, but get into the low, bad, and evil schools, and you still want to go, and can afford to, then good, you can still go. And if, when you get out, you have trouble finding the perfect job, or even a moderately satisfying job, well, welcome to the world. And if you keep appying and never get in, you'll do something else, and you'll have a hard time finding a perfect job, or even a moderately satisfying job, at that, too. Reapply. You're a killer. You can't be stopped. Everything's going to be alright.

[wordslinger]

Agreed, it is never a bad idea, and everyone going into this needs to know exactly what sorts of odds they are facing, especially in lower-ranked programs. And I really am glad you brought your German-inspired bluntness (this also happens in Vietnam - my friend living there was first told she was too skinny and then later, "You're getting so fat and white!") to the question. These are doubts we've all had at some point, but arguing against them reinforces for me why I made the choices I have, like reapplying this year. Believe me, teaching high school seniors at a private school has made me pretty weary of the snowflake syndrome and general sense of entitlement. If another of my kids complains that they shouldn't have gotten a D because they tried their hardest, I'm going to vomit. But again, your assumption is that that is what is necessarily at work here - that you are the truth-teller (the ACTUAL special snowflake!) and the rest of us are just living-in-illusions snowflakes. It's not the question itself that is problematic, but the implication of judgment and, more than anything, ironically, a sense of that very entitlement itself lurking underneath the surface of your posts!

I think essentially we all agree and are well-aware that more prestigious schools will open more doors (though why are you hatin' on Indiana? It's juuust barely out of the top 20, and from what I understand, for Victorian lit it could hold its own with much higher-ranked schools). The quibble most of us have, though, is the assumption that if you are not lucky enough to be accepted into the top 20 (and are we really putting this much stock into US News and its 35% reply rate surveys?), it's a stupid move and not worth it to go. That's where the "worldview, different goals," etc. stuff comes in. A little self-reflection is a good thing to call for, but I mostly take issue with the assumption that if these people actually self-reflected, no one in their right mind would go to BU or Rice or re-apply, because that's what YOU would decide. Give people some credit - we're all adults here. Consider the possibility of a different value system. And seriously, when I say "different" that's not bullsh*t sugar-coated snowflake talk for "lower" or "worse." It's just different.

You're right that you'll have a better shot of getting a nice job at an Ivy, but as foppery points out with his/her anecdote, even that's not a guarantee. Pots and kettles, remember! This is not a very practical or financially smart move for any of us, even if you're going to Harvard. At any rate, yes, it's never a bad idea to question yourself and whether this is really the right way to go. The problem comes in judging each other, or thinking that because you've had the opportunities and, I would daresay, luck (and with these odds, I do consider my success this round to be partly due to luck), you're charmed. So I would say, ask yourself the same question! If, after you get your Ivy Comp Lit Ph.D., you can't get a TT job, will it have been worth it to you? If the answer is no, well, I might ask the same of you that you've been asking of others here: reflect.

As long as we're characterizing entire cultures, the nice thing about the American perspective is that ostensibly it's open to different viewpoints and backgrounds, whereas this other, harsher one assumes that its own standard is the only standard that exists. I mean, hell, I'm going to produce the best work I can at my top-25/top-20/top-10 (gah get me off these waitlists!) program and try to meet that sort of standard, but I'm aware that if I don't, I will be meeting more personal standards of success. Snowflakes!

Word.

I've been reading this thread and thinking, Yeah, manatee has some points... why does it bother me so much. This post is right on... And it reminds me that I am pursuing my PhD for personal, intellectual reasons, sure, but also because I want to engage in the public discussion about language, learning, and writing from a social justice perspective. I think that I'll be able to engage in that discourse even though I'm not at an Ivy League institution. In fact, it might be for the best.

Thanks intextrovert and you other responders too!

[Pamphilia]

And I am not sure that I agree with going to the school where the master of your subfield resides. That helps, but it's the name that follows you around for the rest of your life. Americans love branding, and like it or not, profs coming from Harvard [or another Ivy/"top program"--my edit] just have it easier.

Sorry, Manatee, I hope you don't mind that I added a little something to your quote there which I believe was implied; I'm adding it to make my point here clearer. Hope you don't mind and many apologies if I'm putting words in your mouth (text-box?) that you didn't mean!

Re: "Ivy league and other 'top' PhDs have it easier on the job market"; "branding"

I still contend that this is an increasingly unsupportable argument. For starters, one could simply look at placement records. Many of our beloved Ivies are not placing nearly as well as schools "ranked" (sometimes far) below them. Out of the schools that offered me admission (probably ranked 10-30 if that matters to you), three out of four have placed better for several years than a very famous school whose monosyllabic name starts with a "Y." (By the way, I only mention Y University because it is often held up as a kind of gold standard for these issues.) And they don't place at Podunk State-Branch, either--they place at desirable R1 programs and SLACs as well as at lesser-known schools. I removed myself from the waitlist at one top-10 (or 5, depending on which questionable list you use!) Ivy league program in part because their placement record didn't come close to those of my other "less prestigious" options.

Placement records aside--the branding issue. Americans love branding. True! But what matters here is not the opinion of your cousin who is in sales at a tech firm and gawps at the name of Harvard. The people who matter in our discussion are those on the inside, who have a good idea about what kind of scholars and academic professionals various programs produce and who are--sorry--far less likely to be starstruck by the mere name of Y. You mentioned earlier that professors on admissions committees are "trained" to discern when an applicant "has it." Very true. Also true is the fact that faculty members on hiring committees are trained to know who's got "it" as well, regardless of what kind of creeper plant grows on one's stately brick facade (Ivy--get it? I got jokes!). Seriously, it seems a little naive to presume that the leaders in your field--who have already been through the whole grad app/job search song and dance--are going to freak out at the name on your diploma. I realize that this is probably someone of an unfair reduction of your argument, Manatee, and I apologize. But in many ways this seems to be what you've been implying.

Here's the way I see it: the shake-up in the job market, which has been caused by the recession but also by a shift in the literary academe's priorities (i.e., foci on pre-professionalization and pedagogical training as much if not sometimes more than scholarship), is actually democratizing academe to an extent. The old "ivory tower" is withering up in many ways and for many reasons, of which I will name two. First, the greatest scholars out there right now aren't necessarily getting jobs in those old bastions of academic privilege--they're getting placements at what we might think of as more "accessible" programs. And therefore programs like the Ivies no longer have a monopoly on the most important scholarship occurring OR the best new students (many of whom will follow specific scholars rather than program name). This is, I think, one of the reasons that so many "more accessible" (I like this term much better than "lower-ranked"--blah) programs are blowing away the "traditional top" programs in terms of placement. Second, the shift in academic priorities is significant. Many of the "traditional top" programs--and in particular, the Ivies rather than top programs like Berkeley or Michigan--are clinging to this idea that Great Scholarship must come not only before, but to the exclusion of professionalization and teaching. These programs often de-emphasize (and sometimes actively discourage) early professionalization and pedagogical training because of this grand (antiquated) idea that being a professional academic is bad for one's research (or, I suspect, "crude" in some way). These programs do indeed produce outstanding scholars. But they don't necessarily get the jobs. I propose to you a hypothetical scenario: a hiring committee has two job candidates who are equally charming, who produce equally fantastic scholarship, and both of whom trained with total rockstars in their field. Candidate A is fully pre-professionalized and has four years of teaching including two years of teaching her own courses under her belt, but completed her PhD at a top-40 state school. Candidate B, on the other hand, has taught for two semesters and has presented at one or two conferences ever, but went to a super prestigious program. I ask you, who will the committee hire? In our current academic and economic climate, I strongly suspect A would get the job, and I don't think that this will change when and if the academic job market improves.

Here's where you and I agree, Manatee: reputation matters. A lot. Yes, one has great professional advantages going to a "top" program. I've argued this many times before, and it is why it was important to me to go to a program with a strong reputation. But "reputation" oughtn't be confused with "name." As I argued before, I believe that what constitutes a "top" program is really changing, and that rankings and names and traditional prestige will become increasingly less relevant as (or if) current trends in the academy continue. I ought to note that many programs with "name" will also no doubt continue to kick ass in the "reputation" department. But it's shortsighted to assume that name alone will do anything THAT significant for you.

I'm not sure if I've made myself clear here, and I'm sorry if this is really confusing. I hope that I'm conveying what I mean to say! I also hope that this doesn't come across as snide or rude or anything. Things seemed to be getting a little heated on this thread, so this was my attempt at being light and jokey while making my point. In addition, I do want to thank you for this debate, because while it's clearly upset some people, your argument really did make me think! Finally, I didn't mean to go on for so long! So....signing off now. Pamphilia out.

Edited April 7, 2010 by Pamphilia

[Strong Flat White]

This entire debate over manatee's ethos seems a bit like it's ready to be over, but I have to jump in, briefly and semi-unrelatedly, as a defender of rhetoric.

If rhetoric is the art/science of persuasion, then "You need to lose some weight" is as rhetorical a statement as any – the hypothetical speaker's trying to persuade the object of his or her speech to lose weight. We also shouldn't assume that a direct statement – "You need to do this" – is necessarily a truthful and honest one. Whatever issue we take with manatee's rhetoric, let's not say all rhetoric is evil! (Or everyone who ever speaks or writes anything would have to be evil as well...*) While we tend to give rhetoric a bad rap, the reality is that accusing someone of using rhetoric is a bit like accusing them of using diction.

*cue maniacal laughter

Aaannd, exit nerdy non sequitur.

By all means! Long live rhetoric! I was using rhetoric in a much looser, informal sense (like, asking a "rhetorical" question). But I can only play my newbie card for so long before you rightfully call me on it, so well done. I'm actually incredibly curious about rhetoric in this more formal, academic sense, but have yet to get to it due to piles of literature.