Democratization of the discipline

[soxpuppet]

So because I am always trying to champion productive discussions, I thought I’d pull a cluster of potentially fruitful issues from the now-infamous “year 3” thread, most specifically Manatee’s accurate observation that “on this forum there seems to be an animosity towards the Ivy League that I'm not sure is warranted.” When the illustrious Pamphilia remarks on what she (and I) see as the democratization of the discipline, I don’t see these observations as falling into this kind of Ivy-envy:

“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 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). […] These programs do indeed produce outstanding scholars. But they don't necessarily get the jobs.”

In my reading of Pamphilia’s comments, the Ivies are not so much reduced as certain public schools are elevated to a level of genuine competition that has perhaps not been so frequently the case in previous decades. And I think that this does have a lot to do with the fact that you can find top names in your subfield are frequently employed at non-top 20 programs (to support this claim with an appeal to authority, we had a similar conversation in the presence of the admissions director of a top 20 public school, who, beyond corroborating this assessment, furthermore spoke of interesting work in the field in a manner that in no way corresponded to the USNWR numbers).

The interesting thing to look at would be why these public schools are doing so well. While I concur that I have observed a certain measure of democratization, it is neither ubiquitous nor is it homogenizing. I’ve seen top name scholars working at non-top name schools. I’ve seen prospective students choose the lower-ranked or lower-funded of two offers (sometimes lower ranked by 10+ places, or lower funded by (yes, really) almost $10k/year). I’ve seen placement rates at lower-ranked schools rival those of top-10 and Ivies. Mind you, my perspective (and I think Pamphilia’s also) does come with an elitist twist, as Intextrovert aptly noted, “Pamphilia, strokeofmidnight, soxpuppet and I are going to those top programs” – not only that, I believe none of us seriously considered schools outside the top 50. This is what I mean when I say democratization is not ubiquitous. We’re perhaps looking at a broader range of programs than Manatee, but we’re still making considerable value judgments. Even just outside the top 20, I see many programs fail my (personal!) basic criteria for excellence, usually in terms of stable, non-competitive funding, teaching structure, strength of faculty across subfields, time to degree, etc. But there is a certain group of public schools that are becoming competitive with “elite” institutions.

In my opinion, they aren’t doing this by becoming (or trying to become) like the traditional “elite” institutions. Because they can’t rely on “branding,” they are forced to be innovative to survive the economic slump, to attract the top students and shape them into scholars who will be competitive on the job market. I don’t see what we’ve been calling the ‘Ivy philosophy’ as necessarily failing in any way, but I do think that larger-scale shakeups in our world have created certain openings and highlighted the attractiveness of qualities the “Ivies” don’t necessarily have a monopoly on. Furthermore, they’ve forced us to question our whole system of values with respect to this profession, to find new things to value, to find new ways to communicate those values to the world beyond the academy. In my limited experience, I’ve seen these public schools become competitive by being able to offer a larger faculty, working constantly to revise their programs’ structure so as to optimize the grad student’s experience, and sometimes offering a more diverse array of teaching experiences - not just more opportunities to teach in different capacities in different kinds of classes (which, as others have pointed out, isn’t a benefit reserved for public schools), but experience teaching a more diverse body of students. To me, given the state of the economy, the “crisis of the academy,” and other such excessively cited circumstances, I am attracted by programs that show a willingness to engage not only in innovative scholarship but innovative approaches to rethinking the profession – not simply by seeking to produce something slightly more marketable but by reflecting on their values from a critical perspective, finding what’s best in them, and turning back to the rest of the world with fresh confidence to demonstrate the value of the discipline. Many of the schools that are rising to the top are those that I see as not being able to avoid engaging with the “crisis” but trying to find ways to do so in a non-reactionary way, by building and communicating their strengths rather than seeking to fit others’ standards of value.

Students are deciding that they need to attend a school that boasts the right fit for their personality (whether that be collegial, cutthroat, nurturing, hands-off, whatever), methodology, etc., such that they are in an environment that will foster their best work. Some want to work closely with a particular mentor, while others seek out schools that offer a broad array of potential advisers. Some program structures fit better with different personalities. I could go on – fit is infinitely multifaceted. And there are enough good schools that most students can find a program that is a very good match in many of these things – for many students, this “fit” becomes more important than the school’s ranking, and I think rightly so.

So… what do you see as the reason for this resentment of the Ivies? And in what ways, if any, have you observed “democratization of the discipline”?

Thanks for playing!

[Pamphilia]

Yes, yes, and thrice yes. You've said everything I want to say more eloquently and diplomatically than I ever could.

I will say, though, that I do observe a certain resentment of "the Ivies"* (this almost mystical sports conference) as well, and I feel that I understand why people may feel resentful but I still find it a bit silly [edited here to clarify what I intended to say]. (Though if I'm honest with myself I realize that in some cases I may have spoken about the Ivies in ways that mimic that resentment without intending to.) It's a complex issue, but I suspect that part of it might be a resentment of (what some might see as unearned) privilege, as well as a resentment of the elitist attitudes that those institutions occasionally engender in their students.** Note that I'm just describing why, I suspect, there is resentment; I am not representing my own opinion.

*As I said in the previous thread, though I'm sometimes guilty doing it myself, I still have a problem lumping together all of the schools in the Ivy sports league as if they're all the same, especially in terms of graduate literary study. Obviously, Yale, Cornell, and Brown are really different from one another, though they're all Ivies. I do suspect that when most people refer blankly to "the Ivies" on this forum they're really talking about Yale, Harvard, Princeton, maybe Columbia (I'd offer that this is usually the case for me) and perhaps Penn.

**Yes, this kind of academic elitism or snobbery is an often unfair characterization of Ivy League students, but it's also occasionally true. It also bears noting that academic snobbery is not confined to elite private institutions in the Northeast: my undergrad has a reputation for being really snobby, and though that stereotype doesn't apply to everyone there, it's a pretty apt characterization. I'm, again, guilty myself of occasionally indulging in a bit of academic snobbishness apropos my alma mater. And so I feel that I can speak to the fact that certain kinds of institutions do engender elitism in some--but not nearly all!--of their students. I'd also offer that I don't think this is necessarily always the worst thing in the world.

Edited April 8, 2010 by Pamphilia

[diehtc0ke]

Well, I think to a certain extent it has been because a lot of the most interesting work has come out of non-Ivy schools. For years, places like the CUNY Graduate Center and UMich, which have nowhere near the levels of funding as the Ivies have been the ones producing the cutting-edge scholarship in multiple fields. One of my professors, a grad student at the Grad Center, turned down multiple other options with much more lucrative offers (I don't know how many of you know about the Grad Center but it's notorious at this point for it's ridiculously low amounts of funding and heavy teaching loads). At the time, she was so excited by Eve Sedgwick's work and the possibility of working under her tutelage that she took the offer that required teaching in its first year with little funding. To this day, she can't say a bad thing about that program because she finds that not only is she able to produce the best work (the work that she wants to do over the work that her advisor would want her to do), but also she has been able to teach upper-level undergraduate courses that follow similar trajectories to her dissertation and bounce ideas off of students in a way that was completely impossible at the other institutions she had been looking at.

As for the Ivy situation, I honestly don't know. I've been a part of the public school system since kindergarten and, though my parents always wanted me to go to those schools and I actually did get into a couple of them for undergrad, I was always trained to have a certain level of skepticism about those schools. They were an arms length away but never within grasp whether it be because they were too expensive (ultimately, the reason why I didn't end up going to an Ivy) or because the level of academic bravado at those kinds of institutions was too stuffy and pretentious for a black kid from Jamaica, Queens. This is completely on a personal level, obviously, not from an academic one. I still like to think that I'm blissfully ignorant of how all of this works in some sort of nationally bureaucratic stratosphere. I am, however, going to stick up for my future cohort at UPenn--the graduate students there are probably the least snobbish (and most brilliant) group of students that I've ever met. The same can't be said for other institutions that I've seen and heard about (I'm looking at you Brown) but the negative connotations of the "Ivy" designation should be noted as clearly not universally applicable.

[mudgean]

I thoroughly enjoyed "year 3" and I'm glad there's this new thread. I'm coming from left field, just FYI.

T.S. Eliot said something to the effect that he was opposed to a meritocratic class system because it would destroy the "noblese oblige" that kept the upper class morally bound to help the low class. If people at the top are smarter and harder working, then people will feel that those at the bottom deserve to be there. This idea is not politically correct today, but it's an idea I've turned in my mind over the years as a public school teacher. I'm thinking about it now as we define our terms "elitist" and "democratization." Certainly the Ivies have a history of admitting a few "legacy brats" and that is definitely elitist. However, it seems like by and large now they are accepting those with the top test scores, the highest GPA's, the most brilliant and creative writing samples. They have huge endowments that they use to fund deserving, down-trodden students from all over the world. It's pretty merit based. Is that elitist? The world is never fair, and many brilliant children all over the world never even get a chance to attend school, but less develop writing skills necessary to compete in academia. Maybe what we are talking about is the equal opportunity to be elitist.

To answer your question, I have seen some "democratization of the discipline" here in the Northwest. The University of Oregon has a friendly and inviting website. It tells you straight up the four major areas of emphasis in their PhD program. You don't have to worm your way around inferring, go to the Library of Congress, or begin some mysterious process of interviewing/seduction to get some basic information. Their Literature and the Environment program strikes me as something the Ivies wouldn't have. The University of Washington has become extremely competitive. My guess is that the migration of Californians to the Northwest combined with this recession has led to a huge increase in applications at public Northwest universities, and there are just not that many public schools relative to the population. So UW helps diminish the Ivies and maybe the UC's, but it's not doing anything creative, inspired or different if their website is any indication. It doesn't have to and probably doesn't want to since it gets an annoying number of applications to begin with. That may be true with the other Ivies, although of course those schools are filled with creative individuals.

So maybe schools like UofO will create niches that may ultimately make them more appealing to students. Maybe these schools will compete with Ivies for status or maybe not. While there may always be one pie of status to be carved up, that pie might get bigger. Maybe programs in Ethnic Literature and Literature and Film will create more interest in literature at the undergraduate level, thus reversing the decline of literature departments. I would like to see English programs take away status from law schools, rather than worry about the status of Ivy English programs.

Edited April 8, 2010 by mudgean

[peppermint.beatnik]

Well, I think to a certain extent it has been because a lot of the most interesting work has come out of non-Ivy schools. For years, places like the CUNY Graduate Center and UMich, which have nowhere near the levels of funding as the Ivies have been the ones producing the cutting-edge scholarship in multiple fields. One of my professors, a grad student at the Grad Center, turned down multiple other options with much more lucrative offers (I don't know how many of you know about the Grad Center but it's notorious at this point for it's ridiculously low amounts of funding and heavy teaching loads). At the time, she was so excited by Eve Sedgwick's work and the possibility of working under her tutelage that she took the offer that required teaching in its first year with little funding. To this day, she can't say a bad thing about that program because she finds that not only is she able to produce the best work (the work that she wants to do over the work that her advisor would want her to do), but also she has been able to teach upper-level undergraduate courses that follow similar trajectories to her dissertation and bounce ideas off of students in a way that was completely impossible at the other institutions she had been looking at.

As for the Ivy situation, I honestly don't know. I've been a part of the public school system since kindergarten and, though my parents always wanted me to go to those schools and I actually did get into a couple of them for undergrad, I was always trained to have a certain level of skepticism about those schools. They were an arms length away but never within grasp whether it be because they were too expensive (ultimately, the reason why I didn't end up going to an Ivy) or because the level of academic bravado at those kinds of institutions was too stuffy and pretentious for a black kid from Jamaica, Queens. This is completely on a personal level, obviously, not from an academic one. I still like to think that I'm blissfully ignorant of how all of this works in some sort of nationally bureaucratic stratosphere. I am, however, going to stick up for my future cohort at UPenn--the graduate students there are probably the least snobbish (and most brilliant) group of students that I've ever met. The same can't be said for other institutions that I've seen and heard about (I'm looking at you Brown) but the negative connotations of the "Ivy" designation should be noted as clearly not universally applicable.

I agree with most of what is said here. I think it's more about where you can do your best work. I have no problem with any given Ivy League School, it's more about what the collective "Ivy" institution can represent.

And I do think the American brand of elitism is particularly bad. Americans tend to be isolationist. Living in North America you'd think the US is the center of the world. Anyone who has lived outside of North America realizes that's far from the case.

[strokeofmidnight]

I'm glad that we're having this discussion. I have a really complex relationship with the top programs (including Berkeley, which I will be attending), and these comments have helped to clarify and pinpoints some of the specific issues behind my ambivalence. (for clarification, I'm somewhat arbitrarily including JHU, Duke, Chicago, Stanford and Berkeley alongside "the Ivys" for the purposes of this discussion. This is largely due to perceived prestige: I'd argue that Rutgers, Michigan, UVa, and UCLA [among others that are not on my radar] are also peer universities, I don't think that they are generally discussed with the same bated breath as the "traditional" elites. It may be worth noting that those are all public schools). On the one hand, my sense is that many of the "elite" programs do rest on their laurels--though this is not to suggest that they don't deserve these accolades in the first place. Consistently, some of the most brilliant students that I've come across were from the Ivy's. I just came back from a conference in which the 3 out of the 4 most insightful presentations were given by students from (which I discovered only later) Berkeley, Princeton, and Columbia. The different was palpable, but not absolute--I've encountered many students at "other" programs who are remarkably well-trained, and could easily out-shine their "elite-school"-trained peers. What I'm awkwardly suggesting, I suppose, is that while the "top schools" don't have a monopoly on brilliant students, they often (not always!) do have a higher concentration of them.

I spent my first year in a PhD program outside of the top 20. (I had turned down several "elite" schools for this program, which I thought was a better fit for me--hello foppery!). It was disappointing, though it's hard to parse how much of that was due to the eccentricities of my personal experience, and how much can be attributed to the institution at large. Although I did well, I nearly left grad school altogether after my first year. I spent the next year (this school year) as a visiting student at one of the "elite" programs...and the difference was simply incredible. While there are exceptions on both sides (the single most brilliant student that I know is at my old school), the level of class discussion, presentations, papers...was incomparable. Perhaps I've simply been lucky/unlucky in the classes that I choose, but the constellation of brilliant and prepared (this last qualification is key) students elevated the discourse and, very palpable to me, the level of my own scholarship. There's something about this "elite" program that enabled me to do my best work, in ways that my non-top-20 school just couldn't. (Now whether or not that has anything to do with their elite/non-elite status is an entirely different issue). This experience changed shaped the list of schools that I applied to. Every single one of the 10 programs that I applied to were in the top 20, mostly clustered within the top 10. I based my selections on academic fit (though I was wrong about at least 2 schools, and probably should have swapped them out for 2 or 3 others), but also with an eye towards the kinds of training/atmosphere/peers that (I presume--and here lies the danger) these programs might provide. And perhaps this is where a bit of self-confession comes in handy: after my first round (I applied up and down the top 50), I knew that I would be competitive for the "elite" schools (though the vicissitudes of this process undermined whatever confidence I was tempted to place in that knowledge). This gave me a certain latitude to be more discerning in later rounds. I crossed off programs that would have been a "good fit" but lacked a strong placement record--this especially affected schools ranked in the 20's, 30's, and 40's. Still, I'd disagree with Manatee's mantra that one *shouldn't* go to a program outside the top 20. One should think long and harder (probably longer and harder than I did) when turning down "elite" programs for a program outside of that group, but there are plenty of circumstances that would lend themselves to choosing the "lower-ranked" school.

[Pamphilia]

I'm thinking about it now as we define our terms "elitist" and "democratization."

This is a good point, and I hope my picking up on this doesn't derail Soxpuppet's awesome thread. There seem to different ideas of "elitism" and "democratization" floating around here. I was talking about academic elitism, Mudgean mentioned class elitism, and Peppermint.beatnik brought up nationalist elitism. All in some ways, I think, are relevant to this conversation.

Re: democratization, I was originally talking about how the changes in the academic job market (both in terms of the recession and programs implementing new sets of professional priorities when hiring) are making the playing field a bit more equal, as it were, because the new leaders in the field are branching out more and taking students with them. However, Mudgean brings up the interesting point of access to intellectual materials, via affordable public education as well as physical access to material and archives--which I think is super relevant to this conversation. With online databases and effective ILL--I'd also include navigable department sites here!--one no longer needs to attend Harvard to use its libraries, which in some ways means that Harvard no longer has a monopoly on its own intellectual materials (I know monopoly sounds negative, but I didn't mean it to be so in this case, I just couldn't think of a better word). That is, scholars are capable of branching out from the traditional research powerhouses because their intellectual material is accessible from anywhere. And students, too, can produce better scholarship from less traditionally-prestigious schools because the access to material is not a big problem anymore, which allows them to become more desirable job candidates. I know that I personally had some misgivings about the library materials at the school I'll be attending, and it was tough for me to turn down two programs (well, withdraw from the waitlist at one) with GREAT and famous libraries and archives, but I don't think it will ultimately be a problem because I can access those materials anyway via online databases and ILL. Of course, because I clearly feel the need to qualify everything I'm saying, I'll also point out that I understand the value of using material in person, no doubt! But the fact that intellectual material is more accessible diminishes the need to study at a program with those resources in-house--like, say, Harvard--and gives other programs a better chance to attract top faculty and students and to produce better scholarship.

Edited April 8, 2010 by Pamphilia

[strokeofmidnight]

To answer your question, I have seen some "democratization of the discipline" here in the Northwest. The University of Oregon has a friendly and inviting website. It tells you straight up the four major areas of emphasis in their PhD program. You don't have to worm your way around inferring, go to the Library of Congress, or begin some mysterious process of interviewing/seduction to get some basic information.

WORD. This seriously makes a difference, and I wish more programs would realize it. (Berkeley's website give me a headache--and I knew what I was looking for to begin with. I know of numerous top candidates who were discouraged from applying simply because they couldn't figure out who's in their field!). A dynamic, helpful website that lays out the necessary information not only gives candidates a better impression of the program, but allows them to be more self-selective, and for those that do apply, to present better tailored statements. This is a relatively "easy" fix (not that I know anything about maintaining websites) that could potentially have a huge payoff. I'm looking at you, Berkeley (though they are by no means the only offender): I will organize your damned website myself, if anyone wants to give me a free rein.

[Pamphilia]

I'm glad that we're having this discussion. I have a really complex relationship with the top programs (including Berkeley, which I will be attending), and these comments have helped to clarify and pinpoints some of the specific issues behind my ambivalence. (for clarification, I'm somewhat arbitrarily including JHU, Duke, Chicago, Stanford and Berkeley alongside "the Ivys" for the purposes of this discussion. This is largely due to perceived prestige: I'd argue that Rutgers, Michigan, UVa, and UCLA [among others that are not on my radar] are also peer universities, I don't think that they are generally discussed with the same bated breath as the "traditional" elites. It may be worth noting that those are all public schools). On the one hand, my sense is that many of the "elite" programs do rest on their laurels--though this is not to suggest that they don't deserve these accolades in the first place. Consistently, some of the most brilliant students that I've come across were from the Ivy's. I just came back from a conference in which the 3 out of the 4 most insightful presentations were given by students from (which I discovered only later) Berkeley, Princeton, and Columbia. The different was palpable, but not absolute--I've encountered many students at "other" programs who are remarkably well-trained, and could easily out-shine their "elite-school"-trained peers. What I'm awkwardly suggesting, I suppose, is that while the "top schools" don't have a monopoly on brilliant students, they often (not always!) do have a higher concentration of them.

I spent my first year in a PhD program outside of the top 20. (I had turned down several "elite" schools for this program, which I thought was a better fit for me--hello foppery!). It was disappointing, though it's hard to parse how much of that was due to the eccentricities of my personal experience, and how much can be attributed to the institution at large. Although I did well, I nearly left grad school altogether after my first year. I spent the next year (this school year) as a visiting student at one of the "elite" programs...and the difference was simply incredible. While there are exceptions on both sides (the single most brilliant student that I know is at my old school), the level of class discussion, presentations, papers...was incomparable. Perhaps I've simply been lucky/unlucky in the classes that I choose, but the constellation of brilliant and prepared (this last qualification is key) students elevated the discourse and, very palpable to me, the level of my own scholarship. There's something about this "elite" program that enabled me to do my best work, in ways that my non-top-20 school just couldn't. (Now whether or not that has anything to do with their elite/non-elite status is an entirely different issue). This experience changed shaped the list of schools that I applied to. Every single one of the 10 programs that I applied to were in the top 20, mostly clustered within the top 10. I based my selections on academic fit (though I was wrong about at least 2 schools, and probably should have swapped them out for 2 or 3 others), but also with an eye towards the kinds of training/atmosphere/peers that (I presume--and here lies the danger) these programs might provide. And perhaps this is where a bit of self-confession comes in handy: after my first round (I applied up and down the top 50), I knew that I would be competitive for the "elite" schools (though the vicissitudes of this process undermined whatever confidence I was tempted to place in that knowledge). This gave me a certain latitude to be more discerning in later rounds. I crossed off programs that would have been a "good fit" but lacked a strong placement record--this especially affected schools ranked in the 20's, 30's, and 40's. Still, I'd disagree with Manatee's mantra that one *shouldn't* go to a program outside the top 20. One should think long and harder (probably longer and harder than I did) when turning down "elite" programs for a program outside of that group, but there are plenty of circumstances that would lend themselves to choosing the "lower-ranked" school.

YES. Check-plus.

"Level of discourse" became (unexpectedly) a big deal to me over the course of my visits. Every time I try to write something to elaborate on this, it comes out wrong, so I will just say that I agree with what you've written here and the way that you've characterized the issue.

[diehtc0ke]

I spent the next year (this school year) as a visiting student at one of the "elite" programs...and the difference was simply incredible. While there are exceptions on both sides (the single most brilliant student that I know is at my old school), the level of class discussion, presentations, papers...was incomparable. Perhaps I've simply been lucky/unlucky in the classes that I choose, but the constellation of brilliant and prepared (this last qualification is key) students elevated the discourse and, very palpable to me, the level of my own scholarship. There's something about this "elite" program that enabled me to do my best work, in ways that my non-top-20 school just couldn't. (Now whether or not that has anything to do with their elite/non-elite status is an entirely different issue). This experience changed shaped the list of schools that I applied to. Every single one of the 10 programs that I applied to were in the top 20, mostly clustered within the top 10. I based my selections on academic fit (though I was wrong about at least 2 schools, and probably should have swapped them out for 2 or 3 others), but also with an eye towards the kinds of training/atmosphere/peers that (I presume--and here lies the danger) these programs might provide. And perhaps this is where a bit of self-confession comes in handy: after my first round (I applied up and down the top 50), I knew that I would be competitive for the "elite" schools (though the vicissitudes of this process undermined whatever confidence I was tempted to place in that knowledge). This gave me a certain latitude to be more discerning in later rounds. I crossed off programs that would have been a "good fit" but lacked a strong placement record--this especially affected schools ranked in the 20's, 30's, and 40's. Still, I'd disagree with Manatee's mantra that one *shouldn't* go to a program outside the top 20. One should think long and harder (probably longer and harder than I did) when turning down "elite" programs for a program outside of that group, but there are plenty of circumstances that would lend themselves to choosing the "lower-ranked" school.

Now, this is exactly the reason I've chosen the program that I've chosen. It's been a really, really long month for me with going to these different schools and trying to gauge exactly what it is I've been looking for in a graduate school. I did all the preliminary research on the schools when I was trying to figure out which schools were worth applying to but until I was able to experience each institution first-hand (even if only for a couple of days at best), there was no way to make that decision. In my case, it just so happened that I felt most comfortable but also most challenged at the school that was ranked the highest for me (there's actual a considerable gap in the ranking between this school and the 2nd highest that I applied to--about 12-15 spots actually). This is not to say that I didn't feel anything like that at other schools; I actually felt similarly about schools with bad reputations for snobbishness and overall unlikeability. I just hope that people don't think I'm going where I'm going solely because of a name or a reputation and, in the end, that isn't fair.

Edited April 8, 2010 by diehtc0ke

[soxpuppet]

This is a good point, and I hope my picking up on this doesn't derail Soxpuppet's awesome thread. There seem to different ideas of "elitism" and "democratization" floating around here. I was talking about academic elitism, Mudgean mentioned class elitism, and Peppermint.beatnik brought up nationalist elitism. All in some ways, I think, are relevant to this conversation.

You're absolutely right - I was being incredibly fuzzy with my terms. This was, however, partly on purpose, as my hope is for this discussion to encompass multiple definitions (as it has so far).

When I'm talking about democratization, I'm looking for multiple perspectives as well. I'm curious to know the variety of ways in which people have seen something capable of being called democratization at work - professors at unknown universities publishing in major journals, students from lower-ranked programs finding success on the job market, undergrads at disregarded state schools getting accepted to top programs, etc. Obviously the name on your diploma will always matter to someone, but it seems to me that such names have ceased to play the role they once did in securing the trajectory of your career path, and this is partly because the qualities we are apt to read into a given "brand" label are rarely accurate. Different schools certainly champion different methodologies, and some seem generally effective in instilling certain qualities in their students (someone told me they could recognize a Penn dissertation from a mile away, I also hear JHU students have a particular character to their discourse - rumors, but the kind of example I'm trying to get at), but while the name may indicate the likelihood of certain characteristics, it isn't a guarantor of Quality itself. So by democratization I mean in part that, from what I've seen, most people in this profession may expect things of a name, but they are almost always willing to look beyond it. The profession as a whole is alert to the fact that good work is being done outside the confines of the "elite" (whatever that is), and many people are really excited about this, happy to see it when they find it.

Another quick point. Back in the fall, at the beginning of time, when I was first sticking my nose into these online communities, Strokeofmidnight related to me that she saw forums such as this as a significant part of this process of democratization, as by bringing together a group of people with diverse goals and undergraduate backgrounds, students who had been out of school for a while or who lacked professorial mentors in touch with the current expectations of adcoms could find the information and perspectives they would need to assemble a strong application even without the traditional apparatus of an institution or mentor accustomed to sending their students to graduate school. I don't think my application would have been as strong as it was without the feedback I received from people I met online, nor would I have managed to remain even vaguely sane throughout the process without the intellectual community I found both through this site and elsewhere.

[Strong Flat White]

If an Ivy accepts me, I'll go. If a non-Ivy accepts me, I'll go. If... I'll go.

If I have the choice? I can only fantasize about that sort of luxury!

[Samux]

I wanted to jump into the fray to add my two cents about the concept that appears to undergird this discussion, namely, elitism. As I see it, one of the offensive characteristics it is informed by is undeserved privilege that the elitist refuses to acknowledge. Proclamations of superiority are always obnoxious, but they are especially so when it is apparent that success was not achieved solely through a person's brains, hard work and a reasonable amount of assistance. But if there is truth to this definition of elitism it becomes hard to apply it to ivy-leaguers. A fat-cat dad may get his sub-par son into college, but as far as graduate school goes the son is out of luck. All the people that get into the top schools are smart, accomplished, and hard-working and truly deserve their success. Moreover, having Harvard on your resume surely helps when you're job-hunting, but unless you've worked your ass off in school you're just not going to get very far.

Having said all that, I would be the last person to argue that academe is ruled by a meritocracy. It's not, again, that some of us have an unfair advantage over others, but that, at least as far as applying goes, the process is somewhat irrational. Reading the results page on this site I've come across excerpts from rejection letters that talk about how there were too many qualified applicants for too few spots. It's easy to write this off as a feathery put-down, but as we all know it's the pure truth. I've never sat in on an ad-com meeting but I'd bet my savings that at a certain point the committee is down to 50 applicants and would be truly happy with any of them. God knows what the decision making process is like. I'm sure that some arguments are based on small differences in merit, but there must also be pure hunches that no applicant could have prepared for.

What this means is that a person who's been accepted at Harvard, say, is not necessarily better suited for the program than everyone but the other 8 or 9 people that got in. Hell, there are probably dozens of rejectees who are just as smart and would do just as well. This fact is easily ignored by some of the lucky ones, those obnoxious people who are the source of the resentment against the ivies and other top schools. Unlike elitists as I've defined them, these folks deserve their success but have the gall to deny that it's infused with a bit of luck.

So is it reasonable to resent the Ivies? I don’t think so, but it is, to my mind, reasonable to resent those leaguers who willfully ignore how the system works.

[Pamphilia]

What this means is that a person who's been accepted at Harvard, say, is not necessarily better suited for the program than everyone but the other 8 or 9 people that got in. Hell, there are probably dozens of rejectees who are just as smart and would do just as well. This fact is easily ignored by some of the lucky ones, those obnoxious people who are the source of the resentment against the ivies and other top schools. Unlike elitists as I've defined them, these folks deserve their success but have the gall to deny that it's infused with a bit of luck.

So is it reasonable to resent the Ivies? I don’t think so, but it is, to my mind, reasonable to resent those leaguers who willfully ignore how the system works.

Wow. And I think we answer the resentment question. Well said!

I've read so many terrifically astute and well-articulated posts today. It makes me really exited to be your colleague! You guys are brilliant. Here's me, sending love vibes to you all.

[spozik]

I hope you'll forgive a Classicist contributing to this thread, but I feel our disciplines are fairly (professionally) similar and this topic intrigues me greatly.

It is very important to remember that there is a large segment of the population attending college that in the past did not have the opportunity. The face of higher education has changed dramatically since World War II, and continues to change even more today. When there are more people, there are inevitably more people who will choose graduate school and academia as a career path. Many of these "new" people come from different backgrounds, aspire to different things than a professorship at Ivy League schools (perhaps in favor of more teaching, etc.), and in general don't hold these schools in the same regard as do many of the children and grandchildren of college-educated parents and grandparents.

We're at the point now where many of those kids aren't just looking to attend schools for the first time, but they are teaching and researching at them as well. It's important to remember that some students, including students on these boards, that grew up either not thinking that the Ivy League (correctly or incorrectly) represented the vanguard of education in America or thinking that it was a place for "old money" and they shouldn't bother. I think that this is especially true for students not coming from outside of urban settings or the Northeast in general, where there seems to be a higher emphasis placed on education and its prestige (starting at the elementary or intermediate level, even) than elsewhere in the country.

To put it more succinctly, there are a large number of students (and therefore, in the near future, an increasing number of professors) for whom "Ivy League" is not so meaningful. Certainly, this becomes an aid to the democratization of the discipline. Or does it? Won't the schools that displace the Ivies then become themselves seen as "elitist" or any other word someone wants to use?

For those of us who don't obsess over rankings (and in Classics, we're lucky in this regard, since there hasn't really been a new "list" in over a decade), and I think our numbers are increasing, this won't be the case. There can simply be more good programs. Of course, this will (rightly) raise the stakes for what is considered a "good program" as well. There are good programs a little way down the list, and there are fantastic researchers and teachers at every state school in the country. If you look, you may well find one

In sum, for people who don't have a preconceived notion of what their education should look like or where they should go (as opposed to, e.g., the kid who has dreamed of attending Harvard since he was 11), I don't think that there is so much a negative view of the Ivy League schools as there is not a view at all. A lot of us are bright, motivated, and ready to move academia forward with a new wave of research and teaching--but a school being part of the Ivy League didn't factor into our decisions about where to apply. In addition to looking for a "research fit," we looked at numbers--placement rates, stipends, average time to degree, etc. You know, the things that rankings should be primarily based on in the first place. Many of us were taught by excellent teachers who didn't go to Ivy League schools or ones in the "top 10" (whatever that means--by whose assessment, exactly?)

As this segment of the population in academia grows, you'll definitely see more solid research and more solid teaching coming from outside of the Ivy League. Whether that means the democratization of the profession, however, remains to be seen. As far as "rankings" go, I imagine that the movement speed is glacial, despite frequent faculty retirements, departures, and new hires. But applicants who look to faculty pages, placement statistics, and other information readily available to them in the present will quickly begin to ask, "...and what again is it that makes this place so much better than somewhere else?" And many of those applicants will (you can see this--some have already) in turn become fine professors, teaching in a wide variety of locations and types of schools, publishing frequently and competently.

[diehtc0ke]

I wanted to jump into the fray to add my two cents about the concept that appears to undergird this discussion, namely, elitism. As I see it, one of the offensive characteristics it is informed by is undeserved privilege that the elitist refuses to acknowledge. Proclamations of superiority are always obnoxious, but they are especially so when it is apparent that success was not achieved solely through a person's brains, hard work and a reasonable amount of assistance. But if there is truth to this definition of elitism it becomes hard to apply it to ivy-leaguers. A fat-cat dad may get his sub-par son into college, but as far as graduate school goes the son is out of luck. All the people that get into the top schools are smart, accomplished, and hard-working and truly deserve their success. Moreover, having Harvard on your resume surely helps when you're job-hunting, but unless you've worked your ass off in school you're just not going to get very far.

Having said all that, I would be the last person to argue that academe is ruled by a meritocracy. It's not, again, that some of us have an unfair advantage over others, but that, at least as far as applying goes, the process is somewhat irrational. Reading the results page on this site I've come across excerpts from rejection letters that talk about how there were too many qualified applicants for too few spots. It's easy to write this off as a feathery put-down, but as we all know it's the pure truth. I've never sat in on an ad-com meeting but I'd bet my savings that at a certain point the committee is down to 50 applicants and would be truly happy with any of them. God knows what the decision making process is like. I'm sure that some arguments are based on small differences in merit, but there must also be pure hunches that no applicant could have prepared for.

What this means is that a person who's been accepted at Harvard, say, is not necessarily better suited for the program than everyone but the other 8 or 9 people that got in. Hell, there are probably dozens of rejectees who are just as smart and would do just as well. This fact is easily ignored by some of the lucky ones, those obnoxious people who are the source of the resentment against the ivies and other top schools. Unlike elitists as I've defined them, these folks deserve their success but have the gall to deny that it's infused with a bit of luck.

So is it reasonable to resent the Ivies? I don’t think so, but it is, to my mind, reasonable to resent those leaguers who willfully ignore how the system works.

Well said. To move backwards a little, back to the Year 3 thread again and its original intention as a space for advice for those reapplying, you can have the best scores, the best writings sample, the best personal statement, and have Cornel West, Leo Bersani and Eve Sedgwick (posthumously) write you letter of recommendations but if you're someone who reads 17th century women's writings with an ecocritical focus and Harvard already accepted two people who do that last year, chances are you're not going to get in. Of course this is an overexaggeration but the point still stands. I find that what this process is about is cleaning up every single part of your application so that you can get to be one of those fifty students at multiple schools, increasing the likelihood that at least one will find you worth taking on. The school I'm going to didn't accept any Medievalists this year (though I did meet one who was at the top of the waitlist) and I think three of the handful of acceptees were specifically doing 20th century American and two of those three were interested in issues of sexuality. It made no sense to us (we're an extremely small cohort) but looking at the current graduate students, this was work that wasn't being done to the extent that the program wanted. If you were an amazing Medievalist though, you were SOL, probably from the get go.

It's funny. When I went to visit the school that I'm going to, I made sure that just about everyone I came into contact with knew that I was aware of the class and economic privilege that had gotten me there. I had taken a year off after undergrad and was able to devote about five months to the application process. I held a part-time job for the sole purposes of breaking the monotony of going to the library every day but I was living at home with my parents, not paying rent and able to immerse myself in a writing sample the ended up saving my less than perfect transcript and GRE scores. But, anytime anyone would ask me about what I had been doing for my year off, I always started my answer with some variation of "Well, I'm definitely aware of the class privilege that I was able to tap into but..." This isn't meant to try and absolve myself from fitting the characterization that you've formulated for some people getting an Ivy League education. I'm actually just reflecting on my experience in that I knew that this kind of privilege existed, called upon it and called it out on a few occasions but still personally tried to recognize that it wasn't there. That kind of Horatio Algiers story of working really hard and achieving success is all well and good and of course does have some validity in this process (no one's going to accept an applicant that can't produce a coherent thought just because they happen to know Werner Sollors) but it is important to know that it's often more than that. For example, I know that what definitely helped my application at the institution that I'll being going to is that my mentor, who also wrote one of my letters of recommendation, was a former advisee of the Graduate Chair of the English Department there. When I went to visit, the Chair remembered me as "Shirley's student." I also went to a school that he had taught at several years ago and I think he personally knew the tenured faculty that wrote my other two letters as well. In my case, academic incest took on a whole other meaning.

[Samux]

It'sfunny. When I went to visit the school that I'm going to, I made sure that justabout everyone I came into contact with knew that I was aware of the class andeconomic privilege that had gotten me there. I had taken a year off afterundergrad and was able to devote about five months to the application process.I held a part-time job for the sole purposes of breaking the monotony of goingto the library every day but I was living at home with my parents, not payingrent and able to immerse myself in a writing sample the ended up saving my lessthan perfect transcript and GRE scores. But, anytime anyone would ask me aboutwhat I had been doing for my year off, I always started my answer with somevariation of "Well, I'm definitely aware of the class privilege that I wasable to tap into but..." This isn't meant to try and absolve myself fromfitting the characterization that you've formulated for some people getting anIvy League education. I'm actually just reflecting on my experience in that Iknew that this kind of privilege existed, called upon it and called it out on afew occasions but still personally tried to recognize that it wasn't there.That kind of Horatio Algiers story of working really hard and achieving successis all well and good and of course does have some validity in this process (noone's going to accept an applicant that can't produce a coherent thought justbecause they happen to know Werner Sollors) but it is important to know thatit's often more than that. For example, I know that what definitely helped myapplication at the institution that I'll being going to is that my mentor, whoalso wrote one of my letters of recommendation, was a former advisee of theGraduate Chair of the English Department there. When I went to visit, the Chairremembered me as "Shirley's student." I also went to a school that hehad taught at several years ago and I think he personally knew the tenuredfaculty that wrote my other two letters as well. In my case, academic incesttook on a whole other meaning.

I think the advantages you mention are exactly the sort of things I meant when I wrote, "a reasonable amount of assistance." Not having to work full-time and having the option to live at home are definitely privileges, but there's nothing obscene about them, and you obviously proved yourself deserving by devoting yourself to your application. If resentment were based on the kind ofprivileges you list there’d be few of us (and by us I mean people who apply to grad school) who could escape its taint. This is not to say that there aren’t exceptions. There are, but for the most part people applying to grad school are privileged, in the way you have defined it, to one extent or another. (I don’t know that I would include your example of academic incest with the other ones,since it is as much a matter of capacity as it is of fortune. I’m sure your mentor had a lot of advisees, but did he pay equal attention to all of them?Probably not. Would he really go out of his way to assist a student unless that student had demonstrated a capacity for academic success?).

I’m all for being aware and grateful for your privileges and proving yourself deserving of them, but I think it is possible to take it too far. I hope you won’t be offended, but I think beginning a conversation with the apology you cite just may be taking it too far. I say this because in such scenarios awareness is transformed into a performance, a humble one for sure but also unpleasantly prideful (an example in another context is those couples who love to proclaim their love in front of their friends – even if it’s genuine, the impression one gets is that the display of love is more important for them then the love itself).It’s possible, I think, to display awareness of privilege, and demonstrate that you deserve it, just by detailing what your experience has been. As they say in creative writing classes, show don’t tell.

Edited April 9, 2010 by Samux

[diehtc0ke]

I’m all for being aware and grateful for your privileges and proving yourself deserving of them, but I think it is possible to take it too far. I hope you won’t be offended, but I think beginning a conversation with the apology you cite just may be taking it too far. I say this because in such scenarios awareness is transformed into a performance, a humble one for sure but also unpleasantly prideful (an example in another context is those couples who love to proclaim their love in front of their friends – even if it’s genuine, the impression one gets is that the display of love is more important for them then the love itself).It’s possible, I think, to display awareness of privilege, and demonstrate that you deserve it, just by detailing what your experience has been. As they say in creative writing classes, show don’t tell.

Hmm. I do see what you're saying though, of course, that kind of performance was not my intention. I didn't go to these visits to tell people that I'm aware of the class capital that got me there. This was more of a personal thing because sometimes I've wondered whether all that free time has made me appear to be a better candidate than I really am. I've had to get over this fear but I think it came out in these kinds of unprompted apologies that I offered up (which, I want to make clear, I never gave any forethought to and almost absentmindedly kept reciting). Your point is well taken.

Edited April 9, 2010 by diehtc0ke

[Strong Flat White]

... those obnoxious people who are the source of the resentment against the ivies and other top schools....

This thread rocks. I can't believe, first of all, how friggin much you all know about higher ed (in fact, judging from this thread and the apparent breadth of knowledge that some of you applicants have, I am compelled to feel more or less screwed!). I also can't believe how nice you all are. It's incredible. "Those obnoxious people" is about as close to hostility as this thread gets, and it's still pleasant. No names mentioned. I might not be a very nice person (I, for one, name names: Manatee!), but I have to say... if I have to gear up for the trenches of appliaction warfare, it is an absolute pleasure to be able to log in, start threads, ask questions, and get info. English really is an incredible field, this is testimony.

[soxpuppet]

I know that what definitely helped my application at the institution that I'll being going to is that my mentor, who also wrote one of my letters of recommendation, was a former advisee of the Graduate Chair of the English Department there. When I went to visit, the Chair remembered me as "Shirley's student." I also went to a school that he had taught at several years ago and I think he personally knew the tenured faculty that wrote my other two letters as well. In my case, academic incest took on a whole other meaning.

I dunno, I can't really understand this as a form of academic incest except insofar as such "incest" is an unavoidable effect of the size of the field - that is, this kind of incest is as ubiquitous as it has been at times among European royalty. If your letter writers' work bears any relation to your subfield and if they are at all active in the profession, chances are good that adcom members will have some personal or professional connection with your recommenders.

A couple of examples of "incestuous" connections with the schools that accepted me - some of these I knew going in, others I discovered over later.

School A) Alma Mater of two of my letter writers.

School B ) Alma Mater of one of my letter writers, previous place of employment of another letter writer, proximate geographically to my undergrad institution.

School C) Potential adviser is co-editing a book with a professor at my undergrad institution, and one of my letter writers is contributing an article. Another professor got his PhD from my undergrad institution.

School D) Potential adviser was an advisee of one of my letter writers.

School E) Potential adviser is friends with one of my letter writers and was at one time a colleague of her husband.

That leaves only two schools (which I didn't visit) with connections I can't trace with any certainty. But I suspect there were some there. The only connections I was aware of going in were at school A and school B. There are probably more I don't know about yet.

This is just to say it seems such connections are both more and less significant than we tend to think. Although we don't like to think they give advantages, personal familiarity *can* help lend credibility to your letters of rec or catch an adcom member's eye/help you stand out from the heard. But I think that most applicants possess a far greater network of such connections than they are aware of when applying. It's more difficult for me to trace the connections or lack thereof at the schools I was not accepted to, but I can think of a few that likely would have been noticed, they just weren't deciding factors. In any case, I didn't know about most of these connections until after I'd visited the schools (or had been accepted and received "say hi to so-and-so" emails). I went in, actually, feeling that if anything I lacked significant connections.

I don't know what everyone else's experience has been, but to me these phenomena simply exhibit the "small worldiness" of English. You're in the club before you even know you're in the club.

Edited April 9, 2010 by soxpuppet

[soxpuppet]

In sum, for people who don't have a preconceived notion of what their education should look like or where they should go (as opposed to, e.g., the kid who has dreamed of attending Harvard since he was 11), I don't think that there is so much a negative view of the Ivy League schools as there is not a view at all. A lot of us are bright, motivated, and ready to move academia forward with a new wave of research and teaching--but a school being part of the Ivy League didn't factor into our decisions about where to apply. In addition to looking for a "research fit," we looked at numbers--placement rates, stipends, average time to degree, etc. You know, the things that rankings should be primarily based on in the first place. Many of us were taught by excellent teachers who didn't go to Ivy League schools or ones in the "top 10" (whatever that means--by whose assessment, exactly?)

As this segment of the population in academia grows, you'll definitely see more solid research and more solid teaching coming from outside of the Ivy League. Whether that means the democratization of the profession, however, remains to be seen. As far as "rankings" go, I imagine that the movement speed is glacial, despite frequent faculty retirements, departures, and new hires. But applicants who look to faculty pages, placement statistics, and other information readily available to them in the present will quickly begin to ask, "...and what again is it that makes this place so much better than somewhere else?" And many of those applicants will (you can see this--some have already) in turn become fine professors, teaching in a wide variety of locations and types of schools, publishing frequently and competently.

These are all really great points, thank you. Your comment about a school's Ivy League status not factoring into your decision describes my experience exactly - as a west coast, public school educated applicant, I was more eager to apply to Berkeley than to Yale (and was rejected by both ) - Berkeley was the closest thing to a lifelong dream school I had, the school I was least rational about in terms of considering prestige above my fit. The background you've described does create a situation where certain worldviews and value systems can come into minor conflict, where a prestigious school sees value in its heritage and name that you, as an applicant, are not so wowed by.

Yet I am still somewhat confused (well, disappointed anyway) by the levels of animosity to prestige I've seen displayed on this forum, whether that's directed toward Ivies, programs with particularly competitive admission, or schools with other such records of prestige. It's unproductive and usually stinks of resentment and/or ignorance. However, in terms of ambivalence to prestige, I agree with your account 100%.

Edited April 9, 2010 by soxpuppet

[diehtc0ke]

I dunno, I can't really understand this as a form of academic incest except insofar as such "incest" is an unavoidable effect of the size of the field - that is, this kind of incest is as ubiquitous as it has been at times among European royalty. If your letter writers' work bears any relation to your subfield and if they are at all active in the profession, chances are good that adcom members will have some personal or professional connection with your recommenders...

This is just to say it seems such connections are both more and less significant than we tend to think. Although we don't like to think they give advantages, personal familiarity *can* help lend credibility to your letters of rec or catch an adcom member's eye/help you stand out from the heard. But I think that most applicants possess a far greater network of such connections than they are aware of when applying. It's more difficult for me to trace the connections or lack thereof at the schools I was not accepted to, but I can think of a few that likely would have been noticed, they just weren't deciding factors. In any case, I didn't know about most of these connections until after I'd visited the schools (or had been accepted and received "say hi to so-and-so" emails). I went in, actually, feeling that if anything I lacked significant connections.

I don't know what everyone else's experience has been, but to me these phenomena simply exhibit the "small worldiness" of English. You're in the club before you even know you're in the club.

I don't have those kinds of connections with people at the other schools I applied to, mostly because I find that the professors at my school don't have many of these connections. I happened to get letters from two people who are also full professors at the CUNY Graduate Center but most of my other professors were rather insular in their work from what I gather. This specific instance that I cite felt like Mother Scholar was going to Grandfather Scholar to get me a job at his factory or as if I were a legacy student applying to undergrad. Maybe this is something (once again) exclusive to my experience at a school that's not known for churning out potential PhD candidates and I am aware that these kinds of connections occur at just about every other school, but this particular application felt like I was keeping everything in the family.

I've already felt that small worldliness, just from these past visits. The DGS at one of my potential schools knew that I had a specific concern with going to his institution and so he emailed another scholar (who is actually huge in my field and I've been reading his work for years) at another school so that he could give me objective advice on my options and his opinions on my apprehensions. Turns out that other scholar was also the professor of one my best friends from undergrad who is in her first year in the doctoral program there.

[M.J.P.]

I think the advantages you mention are exactly the sort of things I meant when I wrote, "a reasonable amount of assistance." Not having to work full-time and having the option to live at home are definitely privileges, but there's nothing obscene about them, and you obviously proved yourself deserving by devoting yourself to your application. If resentment were based on the kind ofprivileges you list there’d be few of us (and by us I mean people who apply to grad school) who could escape its taint. This is not to say that there aren’t exceptions. There are, but for the most part people applying to grad school are privileged, in the way you have defined it, to one extent or another. (I don’t know that I would include your example of academic incest with the other ones,since it is as much a matter of capacity as it is of fortune. I’m sure your mentor had a lot of advisees, but did he pay equal attention to all of them?Probably not. Would he really go out of his way to assist a student unless that student had demonstrated a capacity for academic success?).

I’m all for being aware and grateful for your privileges and proving yourself deserving of them, but I think it is possible to take it too far. I hope you won’t be offended, but I think beginning a conversation with the apology you cite just may be taking it too far. I say this because in such scenarios awareness is transformed into a performance, a humble one for sure but also unpleasantly prideful (an example in another context is those couples who love to proclaim their love in front of their friends – even if it’s genuine, the impression one gets is that the display of love is more important for them then the love itself).It’s possible, I think, to display awareness of privilege, and demonstrate that you deserve it, just by detailing what your experience has been. As they say in creative writing classes, show don’t tell.

If I may make an objection to your comments, I'm not sure that I agree that the advantages are "reasonable." They are unquestionably privileges--and privileges that make a big difference in a person's application. I come from a lower-income, working class family (I can explain what that means, if necessary), and I did not have the privilege of having a part-time job or living with my parents to save what little money I make. While I would never fault anyone who did have these privileges (I have to admit, I am jealous!), it's unreasonable to assume that this is the baseline for all applicants to perform at. During the application process, I had to work a full-time job with a one-hour-each-way commute, I moved, and I had other commitments, which only left one or two hours per day for studying for the GREs, completing applications, or revising my writing sample. I made the conscious decision to begin the process in June of 2009, but--again--one cannot assume that everyone has these luxuries. And to expect every applicant to perform at the level of someone who had twice the amount of time to devote to their applications is unreasonable. While I don't believe that a mediocre applicant can suddenly best an exceptional applicant through the sheer application of time, it is too problematic to judge all applicants based on the luxuries of a select few.

Furthermore, you say "you obviously proved yourself deserving by devoting yourself to your application"--does this mean that anybody who did not have the privileges to devote themselves is somehow less deserving? I don't mean to sound aggressive and I understand what you were trying to say, but that doesn't erase some of the class-based assumptions that you are making. I clearly did not devote as much time to my applications as some (and not because I didn't want to!), but that does not mean I was less deserving of my accomplishments. Again, I think it's important to understand that the democratization (or meritocrization??) of the discipline does not begin with the leveling of the playing field post-doctorate, but also prior to enrollment. We cannot judge all applicants by the standards set by the privileged few.

Going back to the question about hostility toward the ivies, I think that is a product of how the institutions see themselves, rather than anything innate to the various Departments or scholars that work at those institutions (or the students that attend them). But when an institution begins to capitalize on their image and legacy (as Harvard did when they developed their own line of clothing), it sends a very clear message: "Our name is all we or you ever need to succeed." Again, this has nothing to do with the scholars that work at these institutions, but such a message is problematic. (Quite anecdotally, I have a friend that attends Harvard Law. She said that the only way Harvard Law is able to maintain a 100% placement rate is by creating fellowships for those individuals that do not manage to land a position after graduation.)

Edited April 9, 2010 by M.J.P.

[diehtc0ke]

If I may make an objection to your comments, I'm not sure that I agree that the advantages are "reasonable." They are unquestionably privileges--and privileges that make a big difference in a person's application. I come from a lower-income, working class family (I can explain what that means, if necessary), and I did not have the privilege of having a part-time job or living with my parents to save what little money I make. While I would never fault anyone who did have these privileges (I have to admit, I am jealous!), it's unreasonable to assume that this is the baseline for all applicants to perform at. During the application process, I had to work a full-time job with a one-hour-each-way commute, I moved, and I had other commitments, which only left one or two hours per day for studying for the GREs, completing applications, or revising my writing sample. I made the conscious decision to begin the process in June of 2009, but--again--one cannot assume that everyone has these luxuries. And to expect every applicant to perform at the level of someone who had twice the amount of time to devote to their applications is unreasonable. While I don't believe that a mediocre applicant can suddenly best an exceptional applicant through the sheer application of time, it is too problematic to judge all applicants based on the luxuries of a select few.

Furthermore, you say "you obviously proved yourself deserving by devoting yourself to your application"--does this mean that anybody who did not have the privileges to devote themselves is somehow less deserving? I don't mean to sound aggressive and I understand what you were trying to say, but that doesn't erase some of the class-based assumptions that you are making. I clearly did not devote as much time to my applications as some (and not because I didn't want to!), but that does not mean I was less deserving of my accomplishments. Again, I think it's important to understand that the democratization (or meritocrization??) of the discipline does not begin with the leveling of the playing field post-doctorate, but also prior to enrollment. We cannot judge all applicants by the standards set by the privileged few.

Going back to the question about hostility toward the ivies, I think that is a product of how the institutions see themselves, rather than anything innate to the various Departments or scholars that work at those institutions (or the students that attend them). But when an institution begins to capitalize on their image and legacy (as Harvard did when they developed their own line of clothing), it sends a very clear message: "Our name is all we or you ever need to succeed." Again, this has nothing to do with the scholars that work at these institutions, but such a message is problematic. (Quite anecdotally, I have a friend that attends Harvard Law. She said that the only way Harvard Law is able to maintain a 100% placement rate is by creating fellowships for those individuals that do not manage to land a position after graduation.)

This brings up the problem that I've had with this whole process but I have no idea how to fix it. No one is going to take you seriously if you write in your Statement of Purpose that you've actually been living a real life while you were also doing these applications but I realize that I had an advantage that is unfair to you. This class privilege clearly does not mean I am more deserving of admission to these programs than you but how are adcoms supposed to know this? Though we both might have gotten our degrees in 2009 (just using that date because I don't know when you graduated), we may both be in completely different life stages and that doesn't really come out except for maybe on a CV now that I think about it. What is the solution for this?

[strokeofmidnight]

I'm not sure that ancedote about Harvard Law is relevant to this discussion, which focuses on the particularities of English PhD programs. Harvard will always have an aura for "layman"...but I think that's exactly part of what we are trying to circumvent.

You mentioned that you applied while working full-time. If I may interject, you're not the only one. I don't necessarily see that as a uncircumventable disadvantage, though it certainly makes the application process harder. Undergrads who apply while in school are at a disadvantage (though time pressure is by no means the only issue at play--scholarly maturity has as much or more to do with it). It's a matter of marshalling one's time and energies, prioritizing carefully and taking risks, as we all do. I'm not sure that one can draw a simplistic connection between quality of applications and the amount of time you spend on them. It's a fine balancing act of time, knowledge, aptitude, scholarship, networks, etc, etc.

For what it's worth, I also worked extensively (60-100 hours a week) during the summer before my first round of applications, while working on my writing sample and SoP. I left what was a relatively lucrative job that fall (which for me, meant moving onto a friend's couch) when I realize that I needed to devote more time to applications. I do have middle-class parents who would have helped should I ask, but I'm not someone who would ever ask. During this most recent round, I overloaded on graduate-level classes, while working and commuting over 2 hours every day. My applications did suffer to some degree (I did not apply to one school because, after 24 hours of working straight, I could not marshal the energy to finish my fit paragraph in time), but I still have no reason to complain. And I'm definitely not the only one. Most of my colleagues and friends who applied (particularly this round) were juggling other commitments and demands--which often includes a family (one friend gave birth during this process!) and a current career. In short, while time to devote to applications is a luxury, I don't think it's absolutely necessary. One does need to learn to compensate for the lack of time (and to plan accordingly--which probably means starting early), but this may be why many of us who better on later rounds.

You keep using the term "a privileged few"...and I'm trying to understand what you mean by it, or what their precise advantage in this application might be. I have no doubt that applicants who need not devote time to supporting themselves during this process, who went to well-respected schools, have close relationships with well-respected professors, who have easy access to library and archival resources...etc, etc...do have an advantage. What I'm suggesting, however, is that bulk of that advantage isn't unique--while one might have to do a bit more work, it is possible to be competitive against these "privileged few" if one arms oneself with knowledge and preparation. That is, after all, part of where websites like these come in.

If I may make an objection to your comments, I'm not sure that I agree that the advantages are "reasonable." They are unquestionably privileges--and privileges that make a big difference in a person's application. I come from a lower-income, working class family (I can explain what that means, if necessary), and I did not have the privilege of having a part-time job or living with my parents to save what little money I make. While I would never fault anyone who did have these privileges (I have to admit, I am jealous!), it's unreasonable to assume that this is the baseline for all applicants to perform at. During the application process, I had to work a full-time job with a one-hour-each-way commute, I moved, and I had other commitments, which only left one or two hours per day for studying for the GREs, completing applications, or revising my writing sample. I made the conscious decision to begin the process in June of 2009, but--again--one cannot assume that everyone has these luxuries. And to expect every applicant to perform at the level of someone who had twice the amount of time to devote to their applications is unreasonable. While I don't believe that a mediocre applicant can suddenly best an exceptional applicant through the sheer application of time, it is too problematic to judge all applicants based on the luxuries of a select few.

Furthermore, you say "you obviously proved yourself deserving by devoting yourself to your application"--does this mean that anybody who did not have the privileges to devote themselves is somehow less deserving? I don't mean to sound aggressive and I understand what you were trying to say, but that doesn't erase some of the class-based assumptions that you are making. I clearly did not devote as much time to my applications as some (and not because I didn't want to!), but that does not mean I was less deserving of my accomplishments. Again, I think it's important to understand that the democratization (or meritocrization??) of the discipline does not begin with the leveling of the playing field post-doctorate, but also prior to enrollment. We cannot judge all applicants by the standards set by the privileged few.

Going back to the question about hostility toward the ivies, I think that is a product of how the institutions see themselves, rather than anything innate to the various Departments or scholars that work at those institutions (or the students that attend them). But when an institution begins to capitalize on their image and legacy (as Harvard did when they developed their own line of clothing), it sends a very clear message: "Our name is all we or you ever need to succeed." Again, this has nothing to do with the scholars that work at these institutions, but such a message is problematic. (Quite anecdotally, I have a friend that attends Harvard Law. She said that the only way Harvard Law is able to maintain a 100% placement rate is by creating fellowships for those individuals that do not manage to land a position after graduation.)