0% Confidence of Acceptance

[squire_western]

I think what ImWantHazPhD and others are saying is that if someone with a BA is shutout this year, it may make sense for her to apply to an MA program in which her primary goal is to develop a "more cutting edge writing sample and statement of purpose." "CV pumping" and attempts to improve GPA, GRE etc. will be less likely to help anyone in applying to a PhD program if the writing sample and statement of purpose are not improved through pursuing an MA. 

 

I certainly don't think there's anything wrong with working toward an MA for someone who only has a BA-- but not only does it help with the writing sample and statement of purpose, but (hopefully) an MA will also provide valuable instruction regarding the trajectory of the field. That said, the advice that stable positions are available in the academy for an individual that only has an MA is ill-conceived and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the real world of academia. Also, it's ridiculous that people on this forum are suggesting that professionalization (e.g. national conferences in specific areas and peer-reviewed publications) are merely "pumping the CV." This discipline rewards people for professionalization. The fact that thatjewishgirl was rejected from Nebraska likely has more to do with research fit than it does with a "pumping the CV." If you think more lines on a CV aren't important to doctoral admissions committees, good luck on your job searches. 

[NowMoreSerious]

Straw men, everywhere, Batman!

Edited February 8, 2013 by ImWantHazPhD

[bluecheese]

I think statement of purpose and writing sample are implicit -- those can definitely be improved over the course of a MA too.

 

That said, the idea that having an impressive CV won't help a PhD application is absurd. It is part of your application packet, and they're going to look at it. A CV alone isn't going to get you into a program, but it can illustrate that you're on your way to being an impressive job candidate. Schools care about their placement records.

[HHEoS]

That said, the advice that stable positions are available in the academy for an individual that only has an MA is ill-conceived and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the real world of academia. Also, it's ridiculous that people on this forum are suggesting that professionalization (e.g. national conferences in specific areas and peer-reviewed publications) are merely "pumping the CV." This discipline rewards people for professionalization. The fact that thatjewishgirl was rejected from Nebraska likely has more to do with research fit than it does with a "pumping the CV." If you think more lines on a CV aren't important to doctoral admissions committees, good luck on your job searches. 

 

First, let me point out that my intent wasn't to agree/disagree with anyone, but to clarify confusion so that meaningful discourse/discussion could continue. Second, I don't think anyone is suggesting that there are "stable positions" available for those with just an MA in the academy (though I have two friends who are in this position and have permanent positions in small non-research based universities). Third, I don't think anyone dismissed professionalization as mere "CV pumping." Fourth, good luck to you as well.

Edited February 8, 2013 by HHEoS

[thatjewishgirl]

CV building by itself won't get you in anywhere. The reason I am so big on the idea of getting an MA before the PhD is because it will make you a better writer, a better academic, a better thinker, and better-prepared to write a focused statement of purpose. Simply going to get your MA means nothing if you don't learn these things. I don't mean this to suggest this is what you've done, but rather to clarify that none of this is why I suggested the MA (although building up a CV and getting good grades is a good idea and will help, it does nothing on its own). One rejection from one school, no matter the school. If you were under the impression that getting an MA with good grades and a bunch of CV lines would make you a shoe-in for any school, you've misunderstood the process. You sound like a very good candidate, but this process involves a lot of things that are out of your control. 

 

Also, an MA qualifies you for alternate-route certification to teach high school English in some states. This may not be your career goal, but it isn't a totally hopeless endeavor to get an MA even if you never go for a PhD. 

 

I do appreciate you saying I sound like a good candidate. I have really tried! And I would like to say that I don't think you can do CV building--conference papers and publications and the like--without learning how to craft a successful writing sample and statement of purpose. My original post was just expressing my anxiety about going down the adjunct rabbit hole once you've completed an MA! I think I saw that someone said something about independent scholarship... It is frightfully hard to work at 3 schools as an adjunct or teach high school and try to complete the scholarship required in this field.

[bluecheese]

I would like to say that people can get hired at very impressive places with short CVs -- if they have a degree from a certain school, a few articles in impressive journals, and are highly impressive during the hiring process (job talk, etc.). There are ways to get around having a short CV. That said, having an impressive CV does help.

[thatjewishgirl]

I sort of agree with this statement, but I also think it's important to say that what makes a good writing sample and statement of purpose is incredibly subjective.  I think you could have really good writing samples and SOPs, strong test scores, a rocking cv, good grades and still get rejected by many programs.  Personally, I think many programs should care more about things like conferences, publications, and teaching experience because it demonstrates a commitment to the field.  I know what I'm saying will be considered controversial by many people, but it is my personal opinion.  Considering that most of us desire to go into teaching, I think the components that bear on our ability to teach are overlooked far too much.   I don't mean to be offensive, but I think what makes outstanding and interesting writings samples and statements of purpose is simply too subjective--and to subject to the whims of trendiness--to be the only factor that should bear on our applications.  I am NOT saying that they're not important, but I am suggesting that they bear too much weight and that the rest of the application should also matter.

 

I fell for you.  A lot.  I also agree with your advice.  Keep your chin up!

 

Thank you. And I completely agree! I think I have taught *everything* possible. I have seen some crazy stuff out there as an adjunct, and I have lived to tell about. I wish teaching mattered more! Despite being stalked and harassed by the occasional student, I love being a teacher, or else I wouldn't suffer as an adjunct. It is unfortunate that you feel as though you have to preface your comments with phrases like "I don't mean to be offensive" or "this will be controversial." It is too bad that dedication to teaching should be seen that way.

[squire_western]

I know what I'm saying will be considered controversial by many people, but it is my personal opinion.  Considering that most of us desire to go into teaching, I think the components that bear on our ability to teach are overlooked far too much.   I don't mean to be offensive, but I think what makes outstanding and interesting writings samples and statements of purpose is simply too subjective--and to subject to the whims of trendiness--to be the only factor that should bear on our applications.  I am NOT saying that they're not important, but I am suggesting that they bear too much weight and that the rest of the application should also matter.

I completely agree.

Edited February 8, 2013 by pepperthedog

[lisajay]

Straw men, everywhere, Batman!

 

curses, out of upvotes! so i give you this instead:

 

 

[thatjewishgirl]

Straw men, everywhere, Batman!

 

This feels rude--I guess I don't understand what I said to warrant this comment, if you are attacking me?

[DontHate]

This feels rude--I guess I don't understand what I said to warrant this comment, if you are attacking me?

 

The forum gets randomly angry at people sometimes -- it's a strange mob mentality, and it's best to just ignore them.

[squire_western]

Yeah, I'd be curious to see what counts as a straw man here. For alleged humanists, this board sure is full of people who (1) don't understand language very well or (2) are just assholes. To clarify the points that are so-called straw men, what I'm suggesting is the following: 

 

1. It has been suggested that national conferences and peer reviewed publications are "CV pumping." That isn't true. 

 

2. It has been suggested that an MA in English literature can lead to an stable job. That is poor advice to give  to almost anyone. If you plan on pursuing a PhD of course getting an MA  is a good idea (I suggested that in my first post that was called out as a "straw man" argument)-- however, it almost never leads to a stable position in academia (again, see my initial post). I'm not sure how either of these points are straw men arguments, but I'm sure some here can enlighten me. 

 

In other news, it'll be really awesome when ya'll can stop conforming to mob mentality and start addressing divergent points made on the thread. But I guess that's counterintuitive to internet comments. 

[practical cat]

This feels rude--I guess I don't understand what I said to warrant this comment, if you are attacking me?

I don't believe it was just directed at you. Reading these last couple of pages has been like reading two totally different conversations mashed together. I don't think anyone was portraying anyone else fairly.

That said, anything short of fully funded is just not an option for me financially so the privileging of the MA is disheartening to say the least.

[squire_western]

The forum gets randomly angry at people sometimes -- it's a strange mob mentality, and it's best to just ignore them.

 

I should've taken this advice instead. 

[dazedandbemused]

 

The lack of news is getting to us, yes, but there's no need to get snippy. Look, I think a lot of people have made some great points here, and I also agree with I'mWantHazPhD that there have been counterarguments to arguments that never actually existed. I don't have an MA and I'd be willing to do one if my PhD apps don't work out. The thing is, padding the CV isn't the same thing as actively doing things to increase your academic exposure. Some of us might not get accepted this year; that's life. But we all know that this is a crapshoot, none of us are on adcomms, and at the end of the day we just don't know what they're actually looking for.

[thatjewishgirl]

i know how hard it can be not to get discouraged, particularly after receiving a rejection, but what you've said right there is patently untrue. if your primary goal is to become a university professor, then yes, not getting in to a phd program this application cycle does present you with an obstacle to getting to work on that goal. that being said, there are MA programs with rolling deadlines, and with an MA you can teach at the community college level and even lecture at many universities. if, on the other hand, your primary goal is to engage in rigorous scholarship, you don't actually *need* acceptance into a phd program to do that. yes, it makes it easier in terms of funding/time/external support, that whole room-of-one's-own sort of a thing, but if you're truly passionate about your work, you can certainly make a go of it as an independent scholar. keep working, keep writing, keep (or start) presenting, network at conferences, & kick/scratch/claw your way to where you want to be.

 

anyway, just my $0.02, but i hope it helps boost your mood &/or put things in a different perspective. pep talk // real talk.

 

This is one of the posts I was originally responding to. With an MA you can teach at community college. And trust me, it sucks. If you want no guarantee of full time work or even consistent part time work, then by all means, work at your local community college. Of course you can get a full time gig at a community college--but you can't bank on it! Meanwhile, how do you cobble together a living? It is tough. Also, being an independent scholar without funding, financial assistance or research tools is also tough! If you work full time at a non-university job, you might find that being a scholar is not high on your priority list. One of my original points is simply that I would not wish the struggle of being an adjunct on someone with academic aspirations. And my other point is that I have gone through the writing, working, presenting, networking, kick/scratch/clawing, and I'm wondering if it might have been fruitless.

Edited February 8, 2013 by thatjewishgirl

[squire_western]

Look, I think a lot of people have made some great points here, and I also agree with I'mWantHazPhD that there have been counterarguments to arguments that never actually existed. I don't have an MA and I'd be willing to do one if my PhD apps don't work out. The thing is, padding the CV isn't the same thing as actively doing things to increase your academic exposure. Some of us might not get accepted this year; that's life. But we all know that this is a crapshoot, none of us are on adcomms, and at the end of the day we just don't know what they're actually looking for.

 

1. "There have been counterarguments to arguments that never existed." Where?

 

2. "Padding the CV isn't doing things to increase academic exposure?" So national conferences and peer reviewed publications don't increase academic exposure? 

 

wtf guys, seriously. read the history of the forum before you decide something like "there have been counterarguments to arguments that never existed." And as far as the "padding the CV" nonsense, understand the field you want to work in before you apply for a doctorate. this is common sense. okay, vote me down now. groupthink! 

[bluecheese]

I'm just responding generally and particularly simultaneously -- basically, I'm treating the thread like a round table discussion. I don't see why that is a problem. 

 

Teaching, conferences, panels, readings, publications, awards, etc. are all on a CV and they all add to your application. They will look at all of this, especially if your application makes it to the final round. I might call this "CV Pumping" -- I don't have a problem with that rhetorical gesture, even if it does have a bit of a negative tone. Being a candidate who is actively engaged in all of the things that compose a "pumped up" (I imagine body building) CV is likely going to mean that the candidate is more prepared for graduate education. And even if their writing sample and SOP aren't leaps and bounds better, the entire package is going to be improved by their graduate GPA and involvement in scholarly pursuits (as illustrated on the CV).

 

Also, I actually think that an MA can lead to a stable career -- the chances of that career being in the academy are slim. That said, there are all sorts of opportunities to build concrete skills (project management, publishing experience, etc.) while in an MA program. It can also make someone a more well rounded applicant for other graduate opportunities besides the PhD (business school, law school, and a variety of other professional a schools). I do agree that going to a program that isn't funded (unless it is an incredibly affordable state school) is a mistake. It isn't worth the debt (nor are overly expensive undergraduate degrees, imo).

Edited February 8, 2013 by bluecheese

[patientagony]

I would like to say that people can get hired at very impressive places with short CVs -- if they have a degree from a certain school, a few articles in impressive journals, and are highly impressive during the hiring process (job talk, etc.). There are ways to get around having a short CV. That said, having an impressive CV does help.

 

I have a question that I think I already know the answer to, but I'd just like to see what everyone else has to say about the topic. How much does having a degree from a "certain", i.e. prestigious, school matter? There are hundreds of universities and colleges across the United States, but if you look at the faculty from any of the top 100 programs, they mostly come from top ranked universities and liberal arts schools. 

 

Does anyone feel like they have been rejected because they went to lower ranked schools despite having otherwise impressive credentials? Or is this something that is impossible to know?

[squire_western]

I'm just responding generally and particularly simultaneously -- basically, I'm treating the thread like a round table discussion. I don't see why that is a problem. 

 

Teaching, conferences, panels, readings, publications, awards, etc. are all on a CV and they all add to your application. They will look at all of this, especially if your application makes it to the final round. I might call this "CV Pumping" -- I don't have a problem with that rhetorical gesture, even if it does have a bit of a negative tone. Being a candidate who is actively engaged in all of the things that compose a "pumped up" (I imagine body building) CV is likely going to mean that the candidate is more prepared for graduate education. And even if their writing sample and SOP aren't leaps and bounds better, the entire package is going to be improved by their graduate GPA and involvement in scholarly pursuits (as illustrated on the CV).

 

Also, I think actually think that an MA can lead to a stable career -- the chances of that career being in the academy are slim. That said, there are all sorts of opportunities to build concrete skills (project management, publishing experience, etc.) while in an MA program. It can also make some a more well rounded applicant for other graduate opportunities besides the PhD (business school, law school, and a variety of other professional a schools). I do agree that going to a program that isn't funded (unless it is an incredibly affordable state school) is a mistake. It isn't worth the debt (nor are overly expensive undergraduate degrees, imo).

 

I agree with you, bluecheese-- both with your assessment of the forum and the MA. I think the MA can lead to a stable career-- I never suggested otherwise-- I only suggested that the MA will not lead to a stable career in the academy. There are  opportunities to build concrete skills as you suggested. But that opportunity does not exist (at least not to any reasonable degree) in English academia-- that was what was suggested earlier (as thatjewishgirl mentioned) and that is what I feel to be potentially damaging to individuals that are just beginning to think about their academic futures. 

[dazedandbemused]

Okay, first of all I've read every single page of this thread. I am aware of what has been said thus far. What I consider pumping the CV is presenting at every little conference and publishing in unheard of journals just to add a line to the document. It has been said countless times, and by many established academics, that evaluators can tell what you're trying to do and it can just be embarrassing later on. As to the straw men argument?

 

"If CV pumping doesn't help there's no reason to advise freshly minted BA's to hang out and hope for the best next time around."

 

How does this phrase make any sense? No one told people with just a BA to "Hope for the best" though people out of undergrad have managed to get accepted in the next cycle with a bit of application polishing. I think you might have an extraneous negative in that sentence, because it would be the MAs doing the pumping, not the BAs...

 

Doing good work and presenting it and publishing work that you can get behind can never hurt you. Presenting the same paper at three different conferences just to make your CV longer (which people have done in the past, trust me)? Not gonna do you much good.

[bluecheese]

I agree with you, bluecheese-- both with your assessment of the forum and the MA. I think the MA can lead to a stable career-- I never suggested otherwise-- I only suggested that the MA will not lead to a stable career in the academy. There are  opportunities to build concrete skills as you suggested. But that opportunity does not exist (at least not to any reasonable degree) in English academia-- that was what was suggested earlier (as thatjewishgirl mentioned) and that is what I feel to be potentially damaging to individuals that are just beginning to think about their academic futures. 

 

AH! I ment to upvote -- sry! (upvoted above to make up for it)! 

 

I feel especially bad because you just mentioned being down voted =(

 

 

Edit: I'm assuming that the CV building is legit.... if you go to an MA program, participate in conferences, teach, etc. I'd assume that one's CV would expand into a more impressive document simply by virtue of being involved in such things.

Edited February 8, 2013 by bluecheese

[champagne]

At least, in this process, everyone has kept their priorities straight:

 

1. Maintaining a respectable down vote level on an internet forum.

2. Getting the best advice for getting into a good program.

3. Getting into said program.

[thatjewishgirl]

AH! I ment to upvote -- sry! (upvoted above to make up for it)! 

 

I feel especially bad because you just mentioned being down voted =(

 

 

Edit: I'm assuming that the CV building is legit.... if you go to an MA program, participate in conferences, teach, etc. I'd assume that one's CV would expand into a more impressive document simply by virtue of being involved in such things.

 

Yes to that last bit. I never have and would never advise a new MA to present "at every little conference" and publish "in unheard of journals just to add a line to the document." Or to present the same paper three times.

 

Also, I feel like my last post didn't get viewed or was skipped over since it is as the end of the last page... I went back and found the post that my original post was a response to in order to defend myself against the straw man claims.

[practical cat]

 

Edit: I'm assuming that the CV building is legit.... if you go to an MA program, participate in conferences, teach, etc. I'd assume that one's CV would expand into a more impressive document simply by virtue of being involved in such things.

This is precisely why it is not helpful to use terms with potentially negative connotations without clarifying bounds of meaning. Obviously not everyone was working from those assumptions.

You guys, I am obviously really bored.