Year 3? On to 2011.

[manatee]

I'll respond to the critics, some of whom are generating really fruitful comments on this thread!

Pamphilia

**I agree you're kind of right here. Your cousin's gawking opinion doesn't matter, but the gawking of the undergrads and their parents does. I have had more than one professor say as much--employing people from these top NAME schools helps the schools REPUTATION and sits better with the parents and undergrads. For this reason, I think that name and reputation are much more inextricably linked than you do. And if we're talking about two people interviewing for jobs, one Ivy and one Top 40, all else equal (ceteris paribus to go along with the curious use of Latin in this informal thread--and I'm getting criticized for the elitism!), I still hold that the person from the better school will get the job. And what about fellowships like Fulbright and so weiter? Just look at who gets these awards--people from the top schools. I'm also not convinced that Ivy students are underprepared for the job market in comparision with others. The programs I spoke with all emphasized teaching and professionalization as much as Berkeley and some of the other schools I interviewed at. Every program I got into gave the same funding package of 2 years fellowship and 3 years teaching. I didn't come across any schools that did not require teaching or other professionalization activities. Princeton (gasp !!!) has this interesting monthly forum in which students and faculty collaborate and strategize on topics of professionalization, the future of the academe, etc. The topic is not outside of the Ivy Tower, but on this forum there seems to be an animosity towards the Ivy League that I'm not sure is warrented.

Paperchaser and others:

I also just want to make clear: I do not think anyone is stupid for not getting in, or reapplying, thinking about reapplying, whatever! You're not inferior or dumb. I didn't say that. You did.

The question was why keep applying after failing twice? In other words, it's a moment to contemplate reapplying for the THIRD time. A third try seems to me a little too tenacious but now we've generated some conversation and reasoning for it. And I'm not sure I agree with the reponses or the logic behind this position, but we can indeed respectfully agree to disagree.

Somehow the conversation also drifted to a debate on Top program v. non-Top program. I'm still going to hold strong to my position, however "elitist" it may be. I would not go to a program out of the "Top 20." This was totally drilled in my head as an undergrad, so blame it on Berkeley. For me, it's a gamble I would not feel comfortable with, or let's say I'd rather hedge my bets in a very difficult field. This is an online forum. None of us "know" one another, therefore everyone offers general advice. Your case, your friend's case, or any anecdote you want to set forth might be different. Good enough. Don't get angry and start villifying me for asking some questions and expressing an opinion, even if it's an opinion you don't agree with, or you dont like the lack of snowflake sensitivity I write with here! I don't need or want to tiptoe around people's bruised egos on an online forum. A good therapist, would after all, piss you off royally and likely offend you before you started making progress.

As for solutions, I completely agree with the poster who advocated that until you can identify what made your application unsuccessful, don't reapply. This seems like sound advice. More than a few of my applications could have been far strengthened by researching the faculty more than I did. I also really recommend emailing profs and establishing contact. This really helped me at the school I am going to, and it also gives you an idea of the program's ambience based on how people treat you. And to be honest, some of the non-Ivies did not fare as well using this criterion.

[manatee]

I'm going to preemptively respond to what I know will generate angry posts! I'm not pretending to be a therapist here, I don't think I am or anything. I just know people come to these fora for advice. And sometimes advice is hard to hear, much less take. Here's a story: I applied and got rejected from law school at 21. Roundly, despite good grades and high LSAT. My counselor suggested that I might not really want to be a lawyer, that I wasn't suited to it and it was something I thought I wanted, but didn't really want. I argued with him that he didn't know what I was talking about--I was going to be an awesome lawyer, it was the only career for me, etc. And then he told me bluntly that he thought I had subconsciously sabotaged my applications to avoid having to make a choice had I been accepted. He challenged me to think about what I really wanted in the first place. I got furious with him and stormed out, didn't come back for weeks. During the time I was away, I realized that he was right, and got on to the hard task of planning a new career path and life journey. This was very scary for me because I'd always counted on that specific legal career path. I'm really happy that he was so direct with me because otherwise I'd be holed up in some office squinting over 1,000 pg contracts as a lawyer! Oh the horror, the horrror

[strokeofmidnight]

I'm going to preemptively respond to what I know will generate angry posts! I'm not pretending to be a therapist here, I don't think I am or anything. I just know people come to these fora for advice. And sometimes advice is hard to hear, much less take. Here's a story: I applied and got rejected from law school at 21. Roundly, despite good grades and high LSAT. My counselor suggested that I might not really want to be a lawyer, that I wasn't suited to it and it was something I thought I wanted, but didn't really want. I argued with him that he didn't know what I was talking about--I was going to be an awesome lawyer, it was the only career for me, etc. And then he told me bluntly that he thought I had subconsciously sabotaged my applications to avoid having to make a choice had I been accepted. He challenged me to think about what I really wanted in the first place. I got furious with him and stormed out, didn't come back for weeks. During the time I was away, I realized that he was right, and got on to the hard task of planning a new career path and life journey. This was very scary for me because I'd always counted on that specific legal career path. I'm really happy that he was so direct with me because otherwise I'd be holed up in some office squinting over 1,000 pg contracts as a lawyer! Oh the horror, the horrror

While I can understand and appreciate your good intentions (though I think my critique--and those of many others--still stands), I find your disclaimer to be a bit difficult to reconcile with the example that you are giving. You say you're not pretending to be a therapist. Fair enough, but the parallels between the story you describe and the advice (specifically, the method and response) is doing exactly what you claim you're not: casting you in the role of the therapist. If I'm reading this correctly, we're meant to see this as clarifying your role in making these comments: just as you were once bright-but-misguided, and fought with the therapist (who turned out to be right), we're to see ourselves as bright-and-misguided, and arguing with you now, we will also come to see that your hard-knock perspective is more realistic and insightful than our own myopic views?

In GRE fashion (apologies in advance), it strikes me as something like this:

Therapist:you :: You:advice-seekers

This, I think, is precisely, my beef with how you've approached these posts. There's a constant implication that you know what's best for the rest of the posters here. On the one hand, admittedly, we don't tend to give advice unless we think we have anything useful to say (and indeed, as i've noticed, some of your advice is quite accurate). But there's something about the non-reflexive way in which you deliver it--without really questioning whether or not that advice is applicable to our situations, our goals, the current state of our talents (as virtually everyone has protested)--that seems unhelpful, even arrogant.

[manatee]

I think that resistance to someone's advice, especially when tinged with anger, is significant. It shows that there is something you understand subconsciously but don't want to admit to yourself or you're not ready to face. Then again, I do a lot of psychoanalysis research. That's all the story was meant to illustrate. I reacted to my therapist's advice with the kind of anger that is being shown on this thread. That must be significant, especially because of the setting. When someone you trust or love tells you something, I take it with much more weight than I would an online advice forum. This stuff I would just take with a grain of salt and not get so bent out of shape!

We all have our insecurities and weaknesses. We all worry that we are not snowflakes. I feel as intimidated by starting grad school as everyone else.

I think this thread is over, at least for me. I'll get back to enjoying my last months of freedom.

[Pamphilia]

on this forum there seems to be an animosity towards the Ivy League that I'm not sure is warrented.

Agreed. I've noticed that, too, and I suppose I understand where people are coming from but I can't say I share their opinions. Personally, the fact that several schools share one crappy sports conference (yeah, I said it! haha) doesn't mean a whole lot to me. Not least because the Ivies--especially when it comes to English graduate programs--don't comprise some homogeneous group. They're not interchangeable. If I'm mentally listing what I would consider for my purposes to be the very tippy top ten or so English programs, I certainly don't include all the Ivies (three...maaaaybe four but probably not). That's not to say that they're not all great programs--undoubtedly, they are. But they're not all created equal, and more importantly, they don't share some kind of uniform "Ivy" philosophy of literary study. Hence why I don't understand the animosity toward the sports conference when we're not even talking about sports. I will admit, however, that I sometimes (as I did in my previous post) employ the shorthand of "Ivy" to represent a certain kind of program. And like others, I suspect, who throw that term around here, I don't necessarily mean ALL Ivies or even exclusively Ivies. I should stop doing this, and using "Ivy" in such a misleading way was certainly my bad. (By the way, when I use that "Ivy" shorthand, I DO mean schools like Harvard and Yale. And just because I lump them in a group with certain other programs, I personally don't have any problems with them. They're outstanding programs! Definitely not for me for a great many reasons, but I do respect them very much.)

As for solutions, I completely agree with the poster who advocated that until you can identify what made your application unsuccessful, don't reapply. This seems like sound advice. More than a few of my applications could have been far strengthened by researching the faculty more than I did. I also really recommend emailing profs and establishing contact. This really helped me at the school I am going to, and it also gives you an idea of the program's ambience based on how people treat you.

Yes. As usual, I think Soxpuppet was dead right when she advocated assessing one's application critically and targeting weaknesses (whatever they may be) before reapplying.

Also while many people advise not to contact faculty before applying, or at least argue that it doesn't make a difference, I had moderate success with this approach and recommend it. (This might be the only time Strokeofmidnight and I have ever disagreed--ha--though she's obviously more experienced in these matters than I so I'd weigh her opinion carefully.) I definitely DON'T recommend contacting faculty with the sole aim of getting someone on your side or seducing a prof to be your adcomm advocate or something. Though at some schools my faculty contacts really did help me once my application was in committee (which was a nice bonus!), at the very best it's a bit tacky if this is one's only aim, and at worst it can really blow up in one's face. I recommend contacting faculty to learn more about the faculty themselves and the program--its "ambience" (as Manatee put it) as well as current work going on and approaches being applied. Contacting faculty was key to understanding my "fit" at certain programs, streamlined my list of schools, and strengthened my applications because I had more of an idea of what was going on *right now* at certain programs.

Finally, Manatee, it occurs to me that you and I might be engaged in two different conversations. I just noticed that someone earlier mentioned that you are in Comp Lit. If this is the case, then we're not on the same page. For all I know, you might be completely and totally correct when it comes to Comparative Literature. I freely admit that I know NOTHING about Comp Lit. Whenever I've pointed to placement records or mentioned low teaching requirements, I've been referencing English programs. Regardless, you and I agree up to a point. But it's possible that where we diverge has something to do with our different disciplines, if that is the case. Or perhaps not!

Edit: Just now noticed that you've closed the thread for yourself, Manatee. Sorry to add on after the fact.

Edited April 8, 2010 by Pamphilia

[diehtc0ke]

I do realize that this conversation is on its last legs but I did want to succinctly throw my hat into the fray just because I've been following this thread as it's developed.

What we're all talking about, to a certain extent, are personal issues, right? manatee makes the claim (explicitly or not) that it's top school or bust but has often qualified this by saying this notion has been drilled into him for some time and that he himself would find it hard to justify going to a lesser ranked school for myriad (i would argue, legitimate) issues. The job market is ridiculously tight, these reputations can carry a scholar farther, certain names sound more attractive than others, etc. There are definitely more than a couple of degrees of validity to this perspective and I say this only because this is ALSO the advice that I've been given and I didn't even go to Berkeley. I got my degree from one of those Po Dunk Colleges (which happens to be in NYC--I say Po Dunk because it's a commuter public school that has no national or even tri-state reputation to enact in these situations) and I've been told more than once that the committee that looks to hire new faculty at my undergrad has rarely considered even perusing an application that didn't come from someone who got their Ph.D from an Ivy or comparably ranked institution. With all of this over my head, I came into this process with the same kind of mindset and this is reflected in the list of schools that I applied to. I sent applications to 11 schools, all of which were in the top 35 as could be gathered from the small box of English graduate programs in the 2010 edition of US News and World Report's America's Best Graduate Schools issue. My research on where I would be happiest rarely, if ever, left that small window of schools. Thankfully, I was able to actually get in to some of those places but if I had to do it again, I don't know if I'd realistically be able to objectively research lesser-ranked schools but only because I've had this "top 50 or bust" background color my judgment for this long. Perhaps a lot of the people on this fora were better trained in how to approach this process than I was but I just wanted to come in to say that I sympathize with manatee's words more than I (or others) have cared to let on.

[thetruthsnake]

I'm going to preemptively respond to what I know will generate angry posts! I'm not pretending to be a therapist here, I don't think I am or anything. I just know people come to these fora for advice. And sometimes advice is hard to hear, much less take. Here's a story: I applied and got rejected from law school at 21. Roundly, despite good grades and high LSAT. My counselor suggested that I might not really want to be a lawyer, that I wasn't suited to it and it was something I thought I wanted, but didn't really want. I argued with him that he didn't know what I was talking about--I was going to be an awesome lawyer, it was the only career for me, etc. And then he told me bluntly that he thought I had subconsciously sabotaged my applications to avoid having to make a choice had I been accepted. He challenged me to think about what I really wanted in the first place. I got furious with him and stormed out, didn't come back for weeks. During the time I was away, I realized that he was right, and got on to the hard task of planning a new career path and life journey. This was very scary for me because I'd always counted on that specific legal career path. I'm really happy that he was so direct with me because otherwise I'd be holed up in some office squinting over 1,000 pg contracts as a lawyer! Oh the horror, the horrror

Well you've just revealed yourself to be a petulant child who throws temper tantrums when you get advice you don't want to hear in addition to being a petulant child who throws temper tantrums when other people reject your immature and snobby advice. Petulance and a snobby attitude get old fast, so does psychoanalyzing everyone else to justify your own pretensions. Sweetie, do yourself a favor and grow up fast or you'll have a rough road ahead.

[intextrovert]

Oops, double post.

Edited April 8, 2010 by intextrovert

[intextrovert]

I'm going to give up as well, but just one final note: it is funny that manatee is casting him/herself as a therapist or qualified advice-giver, when the people arguing with him/her are not the people s/he is aiming the advice at: Pamphilia, strokeofmidnight, soxpuppet and I are going to those top programs, and I believe Strong Flat White hasn't even applied once yet. So attributing our eye-rolling at some of your more ridiculous comments to defensiveness/insecurity/personal hang-ups, instead of considering the idea that it might actually be the content of your argument that is flawed, or more accurately your assumptions and attitude, doesn't make sense. We don't have anything personally at stake!

Anyway, aside from the laughable levels of pomposity reached, I've enjoyed reading some of the responses to this thread - Pamphilia, I think that's an interesting perspective about the democratization of the discipline, and hope you're right. wordsliger, I like your handle, because it could either be Word Slinger or Words Linger. Good luck to all!

Edited April 8, 2010 by intextrovert

[Pamphilia]

Pamphilia, I think that's an interesting perspective about the democratization of the discipline, and hope you're right. wordsliger, I like your handle, because it could either be Word Slinger or Words Linger. Good luck to all!

Thanks! I hope I'm right, too, though I have a history of coming up with harebrained theories and I fully concede the possibility that this one might be wrong.

Also, ditto on wordslinger's sweet handle!!

[peppermint.beatnik]

Then again, I do a lot of psychoanalysis research.

Wow! That explains a lot.

[waldorf1975]

Your field might be the big issue. The more recent the field, the more crowded it gets. Don't get down about your writing. You are applying in one of the most competitive times out there.

Regarding eating and living, have you considered teaching elsewhere? Like high school or ESL education? That might not be the solution if your true passion is literature and research, not teaching, but it's possible. A degree in library science might also be a good fit if you're more into research.

The thought of a career change is scary, especially since you've clearly put so much effort into getting in, but think of the skills you've developed along the way and how you might be able to transfer them into something better.

Clearly, this is your passion, so I would never advise against applying for a third time, but this is also the time to put together a Plan B. Good luck!

[lifealive]

Wow! That explains a lot.

I kept thinking the same thing. "Projecting much?" I don't know. Perhaps people who did Fulbrights and lived on Thai beaches just have different expectations for life/career/etc. My time "off" was a little different (dehumanizing but gainful employment), so I approach grad school much more pragmatically and realistically. I don't attend a top-20 school--only a top 25--and I do solemnly agree that that is a serious setback (I know that I will probably never teach at an R1 or selective SLAC), but oh well. The rewards of being a grad student--or even being a professor at a lowly community college--provide a wonderful, fantastic alternative to my previous life as a cubicle drone (albeit a well-off one). For me, grad school is the reward itself. I've said this before: it truly is all about expectations.

[fromeurope]

I don't attend a top-20 school--only a top 25--and I do solemnly agree that that is a serious setback (I know that I will probably never teach at an R1 or selective SLAC), but oh well.

Top 20 vs top 25? That's almost negligible! If you had said only a top... say 50 or something, it'd have made more sense. If a top 20 program (i.e. the 15-20 range) provides you with a shot at these kinds of job, I don't see how a top 25 (20-25) somehow categorically wouldn't. Perhaps you're at a slight institutional disadvantage, but surely, "serious setback" is a bit strong?

[lifealive]

Top 20 vs top 25? That's almost negligible! If you had said only a top... say 50 or something, it'd have made more sense. If a top 20 program (i.e. the 15-20 range) provides you with a shot at these kinds of job, I don't see how a top 25 (20-25) somehow categorically wouldn't. Perhaps you're at a slight institutional disadvantage, but surely, "serious setback" is a bit strong?

I was only half serious. Though, given the general tenor of these discussions--which tend to be Berkeley or bust--maybe not.

[Medievalmaniac]

I've been thinking about this thread and about the responses and conversations that have been posted. And I think what it boils down to, ultimately, is perceptions, and who has them, about what, and based on what.

When you argue that "going to any school that is less than a top-twenty school" (in some cases, a top ten, dependent upon your situation and who you have been talking to) is pointless - where did you get that statement from? Surely as an undergraduate you didn't think of it yourself. Ten to one, you got it from one or more of your own professors. Who all have their own ideas about things. Who all come from programs they either loved or got through, who have all had their own ups and downs and experiences with the system and the market and everything else. I have a professor who went to a very elite, overseas university with one of the best programs in the world, literally, for medieval studies. When she came back to the States, she was beat out for a job by someone from Yale because he held an Ivy League doctorate. Her degree absolutely outranks his as far as the field of study is concerned, but the department just saw Yalie Blue available and pounced. She got a different job, and as it happens has won numerous awards already for teaching and for scholarship, on the international level. He has one article out, and it wasn't that well received. Needless to say, she's a little dismissive of the Ivy programs in general and of Yale in particular, because her degree has gotten her farther, faster, in the overall world of medieval studies on the international level than has that of the fellow who beat her out of the slot at Prestige U. - but, she also resents hell out of them because here in America, they get the largest piece of the pie even when they don't yield the most productive scholarship and teaching.

Other professors have told me "if you can't go to a top school, don't go". Many of them are jaded because they didn't end up where they wanted to be - in research institutions - and they think that's the sign of success; they didn't set out to work in liberal arts colleges, but that is where they ended up - so yeah, they're a little bitter. I had one professor (now retired) who went to a state school - not even a flagship state school - and was a top scholar in his field, a Fulbright scholar, and an incredibly prolific and well-respected authority in his subject. The school is not even ranked according to Forbes et al. I wouldn't bat an eye about going to the same program, which still has a good, solid reputation but isn't ranked - because that's the kind of scholar I want to be. I've had professors from top programs who really can't teach. I've had professors from top programs who are the best teachers you could ever hope to study under. I've had professors from No-Name U in both categories, as well. I'm not sure it's the program that determines whether you can convey what you know to someone else, I think it's the individual scholar/teacher - some are teachers, and some aren't. A top scholar from a top program who can't interact with his or her students is nowhere near as valuable as the middling university graduate whose courses are full because she's so good at what she does. Some of the best medievalists in the field are at small, liberal arts colleges and don't even take graduate students. Some never conference. They are busy doing their jobs as teacher-researchers. They're priceless, and not interested in teaching at a prestigious university. Some of the biggest names in English hardly ever teach at all. Some of them tech freshman comp. It's all a matter of where your priorities are, in my opinion. There's no good or bad, right or wrong - there are just all kinds of academics and all kinds of mindsets about what that means, and we have to decide as graduate students what is for us and go to a school that fosters our particular view of the thing.

I have friends currently at top 10 and even top 5 schools. Some of them are having the time of their lives; some are really unhappy. At least two of them are very, VERY ABD, and will probably never finish. I wouldn'I want to go to a name-brand school and then just do my best to get through it. I'd rather go to a B-level or even C-level program where I matter to my professors and where my work is appreciated and my energy is harnessed and my ideas are considered. This is not to say that all Ivies or all elite institutions are like that, but I do think there's a tendency to think, "you're in, you're golden," and I don't believe that. I think you really do need to consider yourself as an individual and what you want out of the experience. And that is a very individual choice, that has to be made about each individual department, by each prospective scholar. A department that looks perfect on paper and has a stellar reputation may, in person, be a den of conspiracies and negativity, but not yet recognized as such; a department not really noted may have hired several new professors and be on the up-and-up - as someone else here has pointed out, things change, and the stats don't always keep up - which is why in-person visits and talking with current students is soooo important.

My perception of the anti-Ivy schtick is that yes, in some cases it is sour grapes. In some cases, it's a genuine distaste for elitist, entrenched patterns - whether this is true or not, the impression remains. In some cases, it stems from deep-seated resentment of people who went to an ivy and just happen to be in someone's life, made it unpleasant, and therefore the whole shebang is tainted. In some cases, it's a desire to see a more even playing field in academia overall. There are just a multitude of possible reasons behind it. Who knows? Again, it's so personal and subjective.

For my part, I'm a first-generation college student who went to a public ivy for my undergraduate experience. I worked full time and commuted from home to make it happen. My grades suffered because I had no free time to get the reading and papers done properly. That's OK - I finished, and frankly, at that point, I was glad to graduate at all. As an adult with children, I have very different considerations than many other applicants when I make choices as to where to apply. But I don't think deciding to have a family should preclude me from getting a PhD, and I know that my work and research and current projects are top-caliber, because I am winning awards, being asked and paid to give presentations to groups, and working with a publishing house on my first monograph. there's a program out there that will gladly overlook my undergraduate GPA in light of the fact that everything I have done since then has put me in the position I am in today - an avid and dedicated scholar, a strongly capable teacher, and a passionate representative for my field of study. I thought I was top-shelf, and so did my recommenders - two of whom graduated from top-shelf programs. Turns out, top-shelf doesn't think so, and that's OK, it really is. Sure, I'm disappointed - but I also believe that there's surely a program out there that will think so...I just have to be patient, research programs, and apply until I get into one of them.

I will not be going to Harvard, Yale, Cornell, Princeton, UNC-Chapel Hill, Florida State - or any of the top programs in my field - not because I don't want to, or because I have something against them, or for any reason other than that I cannot get in because I made different choices. That is OK with me. I would not trade my children for a degree, nor any of the experiences that have made me the person and the teacher I am today - a far, FAR better one than I was originally on the path to being, thanks to some excellent mentoring from my Dean of Academics and, mostly, to being a parent myself and to the students I have taught over the years. Maybe I'm not top shelf as far as ad comms at many programs are concerned. But, I will go to a PhD program somewhere, and I will finish it, and I will continue to work with the scholars from those institutions for the rest of my career as a colleague. I'm already corroborating on projects with some of the students in these programs, and already making working relationship connections with the professors in my field that I admire.

So, for me, I may never teach at an R1 institution - but that is not my personal definition of success. My definition of success is to be a respected, contributing member of the overall academic community and of my field in particular, wherever I end up - and that's not on my degree program, my recommenders, my professors, or anyone else - it's on me. It may be a lot harder for me to get my foot in the door initially, but ultimately whether I am a success or failure has nothing to do with the program I attend, it has everything to do with what I do with that education. It's on me to make it work, as well as I can. If I succeed brilliantly, it will not be because of the piece of paper on my wall, but because of my character.

I hope this post conveys what it is intended to, which is that success is personally defined, even if society overall has a generally accepted view of what it means. For me, success is and always has been an ongoing process. My end goal is to conduct excellent scholarship and to teach at the university level. If I apply three or four times before I get into a PhD program, but ultimately I get in - OK, I didn't get into a top program, but I succeeded in meeting my goal of getting into a program that will qualify me to teach at the university level. When I graduate from that program, I'm still going to be Professor Medievalmaniac, even if it is as a commuting adjunct at three community colleges, and as Professor Medievalmaniac, I will continue to research, write, conference and publish, whether that's easy or hard. (Currently, I pay for my travel out of pocket and if I want to conduct research, I have to travel over an hour to get to the nearest academic library and beg my friends to get me copies of articles from JSTOR - I am OK with it's being hard to maintain my professional activities). There may be people who will shake their heads and say ruefully, "ahhh, just think what you could have done if you had just gone to Brand Name University". That's not my problem, that's theirs...I'll be busy teaching, researching, writing, and being a professional scholar. I just want to do the work, and frankly, I don't care where I do it, or who I do it with - it's not about that. It's about me and my scholarship and teaching. Having worked in urban public schools, rural public schools, and an elite boarding school, in departments that have been collegial and departments that have been total snakepits, I have learned one crucial thing about success as I define it for myself - which is that If I'm focused and passionate about my work, then I'm going to be fine wherever I end up.

[fromeurope]

I was only half serious. Though, given the general tenor of these discussions--which tend to be Berkeley or bust--maybe not.

Sorry.

[mudgean]

You preach it, medieval! There is a lot of wisdom here. The whole contentment issue is another story. It takes life experience and a lot of reflection to figure that out, but you're right, everyone will come to their answers in their own way.

[!anonscribe!]

Yes, if you will only be happy with an R1 or SLAC job, then you probably ought not go anywhere outside the top 10 or 20, max, unless your specialty is top five at a non-top 20 school. the unlikely sometimes happens; that doesn't make it any less unlikely. but, let's do a little dirty math.

There are, what?, 50 or 60 R1 jobs people would consider suitable (I doubt the person who desperately wants an R1 job at all costs will be happy with U of Kentucky, no disrespect). Maybe another 40 or 50 SLAC's. So, we have 100 departments, roughly, with faculties averaging around maybe 12 or 15. We're talking about 1500 jobs. In any given five year period (the time most are willing to look for work before 'settling'), maybe 10% of these open up (optimistic, i know)? so, 150 openings. in a five year period, the top 50 programs graduate about 2500 students (average of 10 ph.d.'s graduate per department per year). the top 20 graduate roughly 1,000 students. this doesn't take into account fields outside english hired into english departments, folks from foreign departments, etc., making the numbers even tighter.

what do we learn from this: if your goal is to get an R1 or SLAC job at all costs, you probably shouldn't go to grad school at all even if it's at penn or ucla. you're praying against hope.

now, if you'd be happy with any U.S. college in any region granting bachelor's and above, you have about 2,339 options according to this: http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/ . If you'd also be happy at a community college anywhere in the country, the total number of institutions in your job search pool increases to 3,658 colleges.

my point: you should be clear about what sort of job would make you happy compared to what sort of job you have a fair chance of getting. those who would be happy with a CC job probably can't go wrong with a Ph.D., so long as they get funding. those in the top 50 who would be happy with any job but a CC job are probably in good shape also. But, if you barely squeeze into the top-50 and have your heart set on an R1 job, you should probably cut and run. in my program over the past four years (top-40), every single degree-earner has a full-time job, 3/4 being tenured. why? because half our grads take TT jobs within nearby CC districts. the other half muscle it into state U jobs, and one or two lucky souls each year get lucky at a peer institution (from rank 20-70).

on placement statistics: keep in mind that most samples are so small as to make these numbers of limited use. most departments graduate maybe 10 or 15 people a year. once you get out of the top-20, you start getting a lot more students who, as those on here have noted, have complex autobiographies. some simply can't move outside the county/region (meaning they'll probably end up at a CC). some never intended to get a job with their ph.d. some will move out of country and never be heard from again. some are well into their 40's when they entered grad school. the folks in my program who fit the model of the average top-20 grad (under 34 when they get the ph.d., published, willing to do a national search, etc.) tend to get pretty good jobs. those who don't have fewer options.

people with english ph.d.'s are a fairly small group. about 1400 are given a year. it's hard to provide anything but anecdotal predictions about a group this small and specialized.

of course, if the Ph.D. is for self-fulfillment (which ought to be at least a partial reason for anyone doing it), then none of this matters, and you should just make sure you stay true to yourself while pursuing it.

[wordslinger]

Thanks! I hope I'm right, too, though I have a history of coming up with harebrained theories and I fully concede the possibility that this one might be wrong.

Also, ditto on wordslinger's sweet handle!!

Not bumping this thread! Just thanks for the mad props.

[Branwen daughter of Llyr]

I have learned one crucial thing about success as I define it for myself - which is that If I'm focused and passionate about my work, then I'm going to be fine wherever I end up.

Yes, yes, and yes again.

Although I do want to end up teaching at a great Uni eventually - I don't mind if I have to go through some adjunct roundabout paths before I land the right TT for me. The whole thing is, at the end, about living your passion and dream.

A few notes regarding the entire discussion and why we try again - like artists - musicians, dancers, painters, etc. - the life of an academic will be fraught with rejections and setbacks. Yes, there must be TALENT underlying the passion (after all, someone who can't sing shouldn't try and try again ad-infinum), but a large portion of success in the artistic fields is drive and determination. Some actors have to pound the pavements for years before they get a break. Some painters were only appreciated as visionaries after their death (Van Gogh is one, for example). I applaud those of us who are re-applying for the third time. I think it shows great determination and passion for the subject. Of course, reality checks must occur - is there an underlying talent? Can the skills be honed to perfection this third time around? What can you improve upon your application? I agree that if you don't think that anything can be improved upon, you're not ready to re-apply, but I don't think that this is the case for most of those writing in this forum.

I am reapplying for the second time next year. I've recognized my weak points and I'm working on strengthening them. One weak point was applying to only four top-tier schools, and not concentrating on department and research fit. Another weak point was an unfocused SOP and unfocused research interests. the third weak point was a writing sample from college, which was good, but not spectacular. All of these issues will be corrected for the next round.

I'm nearly 38, and it took me a long time to get up the nerve to go back to grad school. Manatee talks about career paths, etc., but in today's job market, even that's not a guarantee for a steady income. And for me, at least, no steady income can compensate for a lackluster life, in which I kind of like what I do, but I'm not particularly passionate about it. Maybe it's more acute for me because I'm single and don't have my own family - there is no other "worth" measure but the job/career thing. And I'd rather be financially frugal and ecstatic about what I do than comfortable and complacent. What can I say, there aren't a lot of thrills involved in Technical writing. There ARE thrills (for me at least) in teaching and scholarship.

Like artists, English PhDs definitely need that "it" factor that is so hard to define. But often, that "it" factor needs some maturation and "cooking" before it emerges - another grad seminar, another independent research, another stressful application year. Just like an actor has to go through those 500 auditions before the "it" factor suddenly shines through.

[mudgean]

Yes, yes, and yes again.

And for me, at least, no steady income can compensate for a lackluster life, in which I kind of like what I do, but I'm not particularly passionate about it. Maybe it's more acute for me because I'm single and don't have my own family - there is no other "worth" measure but the job/career thing. And I'd rather be financially frugal and ecstatic about what I do than comfortable and complacent.

I agree. Life is too short to grind away the time at an unfulfilling job.

Rationally, I know that a person who chooses not to have children in this overpopulated world/resource depleted world, and instead chooses intellectual pursuits, has to be more valuable to the planet than someone like the octomom. I don't think society's values have quite caught up to the environmental realities. And as far a money and contentment go, calculating the "return" on an Phd, financial or otherwise, is much different for a person without children than someone with a family.

Edited April 13, 2010 by mudgean

[Branwen daughter of Llyr]

I agree. Life is too short to grind away the time at an unfulfilling job.

Rationally, I know that a person who chooses not to have children in this overpopulated world/resource depleted world, and instead chooses intellectual pursuits, has to be more valuable to the planet than someone like the octomom. I don't think society's values have quite caught up to the environmental realities. And as far a money and contentment go, calculating the "return" on an Phd, financial or otherwise, is much different for a person without children than someone with a family.

Heh, my not having children has pretty much nothing to do with the rational aspect of it (although I can see your point). It just never happened, I didn't get married, and I haven't had the finances to go have a kid as a single mom. Since i'm turning 38 this summer and am now going after the PhD, I've pretty much resigned myself to not having kids . On the other hand, since I want to write books for kids and young adults, I'm hoping that any maternal instincts I might have can be expressed that way one day .

[Let'sGetMetaPhysical]

I've been lurking on this board for some time now and I have to say that this is very depressing, but also inspiring. I only hope that I will have the resilience shown here whenever I am going through the application process! I had a conversation with my advisor the other day and maniac's post (#66) on this thread made me think about it as well. I won't say that there is no hope for me getting into one of the top 20 schools, but I will admit that the chances aren't looking good. I just hope that I can get into a program somewhere that will allow me to teach something that I feel passionate about. I hope that year two or three allows you all to do the same.

[EKPhrase]

I got my 7th and final rejection in the mail today. What to do next is the looming question.

On the negative: this is my 2nd year applying, so not feeling so good. Thought I would get in this year.

On the positive: have been in contact with a program I found after apps were due that might be good. Everything's a might-be in a post-rejection world.

What will you do? (I'm sad and bitter-- I hate the world, yet I will almost definitely do this again next year.)

Bookchica,

I'd only like to say that I feel your pain - This year was my third round before getting into programs. In the meantime, I took graduate courses at a local University MA program. It helped me because I had been out of school for a while.