0% Confidence of Acceptance

[NowMoreSerious]

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

I apologize if you felt attacked or if I came off rude. I didn't even have you in mind when I made that comment, and further I would never attack someone personally. I will put pressure on ideas though.

But just to clarify to whoever, I personally never argued any of the following:

1. A good CV doesn't help a Ph.D. application.

I said, (I think) clearly, that pumping your CV will not have much effect if you don't also improve your SOP and CV.

(Everybody I've ever known on admissions committees ranks the SOP/WC as the two most important application documents)

2. An MA automatically leads to a job.

[NowMoreSerious]

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

 

 

hell yeah (also out of upvotes)

[kaputzing]

What's your area of expertise? Presumably it's not poetics/poetry because Buffalo is so well placed in that area.

 

Top tier schools are not everything. Maybe it's because I am an International that these things do not matter so much to me, but what motivated all my decisions were the people I wish to work with. You will not believe the number of significant scholars working at less than prestigious schools. 

 

But that's my opinion and certainly the opinion I received from other academics. Would be interesting to hear what other people say.

 

It is field-dependent. Yes, there are top scholars everywhere scattered amongst departments of less prestigious schools. In some fields, though, you'll notice that no matter where these scholars teach, they'll all have gotten their degrees at a group of core schools. (Example: in my field, top scholars basically come from UMich, UChicago, UPenn, Yale, Harvard, a few German and Dutch schools, and maybe Oxford once in a while.)

[cicada123]

I'm certainly not denying that some are funded, but most are not fully and I can't realistically justify adding to my student debt in any way. It is not a viable option for everyone and it has unfortunately been treated as such in this thread.

Is a funded MA something I will consider if I strike out this year? Yes but it was also something I weighed this year and I decided to gamble on my undergrad record. I think most of us who are applying with just the BA have at least thought about it. This is not at all directed at you, asleepawake, but I don't always appreciate the excessive concern over the lack of the MA that is often exhibited here. Again, disheartening.

I was on grad cafe a couple years ago, and one topic of conversation was about MAs being "second-class citizens" in comparison with the PhDs at any school they decided to attend. I did end up pursuing an unfunded MA, which has a great reputation. And recently, a professor (in an interview) commented on how great a program it was. I know it has helped me tremendously this round. Perhaps, people on the forums (with MAs) feel the need to defend them in some way, because over the years a nasty trend of talking about MAs as inferior has surfaced. There seem to be an equal number of PhDs and MAs accepted at a couple of the schools I'm considering at the moment. So, I completely understand that getting an unfunded MA is not viable for everyone (and honestly, it wasn't really for me either-- I have a great deal of debt from it), but for me it has led to five-six years of full funding (and a nomination for a fellowship on top of one offer).

[practical cat]

I was on grad cafe a couple years ago, and one topic of conversation was about MAs being "second-class citizens" in comparison with the PhDs at any school they decided to attend. I did end up pursuing an unfunded MA, which has a great reputation. And recently, a professor (in an interview) commented on how great a program it was. I know it has helped me tremendously this round. Perhaps, people on the forums (with MAs) feel the need to defend them in some way, because over the years a nasty trend of talking about MAs as inferior has surfaced. There seem to be an equal number of PhDs and MAs accepted at a couple of the schools I'm considering at the moment. So, I completely understand that getting an unfunded MA is not viable for everyone (and honestly, it wasn't really for me either-- I have a great deal of debt from it), but for me it has led to five-six years of full funding (and a nomination for a fellowship on top of one offer).

The thing though, is that no one in my years of reading these boards has ever argued that having an MA produces a weaker candidate. There may be some nasty talk (yes, I have seen that) but it's not quite the same as the accusations of immaturity and unacceptability that those of us without face. I actually honestly don't understand the need to defend that choice -- you don't need to defend the choice, it is clearly the privileged position. And there needs to be some understanding of the fact that it is not necessarily a choice for everyone (not here so much but throughout academia).

[rems]

If I can jump here, what I think thatjewishgirl (that makes me feel weird like we're on the playground and I'm pointing at her, saying "Now what that Jewish girl over there meant was...") ORIGINALLY meant is that after all this time and effort spent in academia, it feels like a waste at this point to be rejected from so many places. Honestly, I feel the exact same way. I'm already an adjunct, and I don't want to keep doing this so after these applications, I'm finished with academia. I think that's what she was originally bemoaning -- not having an MA (that's what we're arguing about that this point right?). Having an MA can't hurt your chances of getting PhD, but I have an MA in literature, not teaching or tech writing or creative writing or whatever -- literature. What the fuck am I supposed to do with that? I can work in insurance and I can work in an office somewhere pushing paper. I could apply to a professional program. Honestly, I might just get certified to teach high school and go down that route. Or I might go into administration. So I have options. But I've been working towards this goal for, say, 5 years now and I've shelled out thousands of dollars to attend conferences all over the world, I was a grad student, a GTA, and I had a side job just to make ends meet (my program was fully funded, but that doesn't mean much) so I came out with no friends anymore because I literally worked seven days a week 365 a year for this. And now, after all this time, all this effort, I get shut out. I've already been rejected from two places -- two places I thought were a good fit -- and I don't see an acceptance coming from the other four anytime soon. 

 

Do I have any reason to assume these rejections? No, but I am. Do I "regret" getting an MA? No. Do I "regret" all that time I got to spend in Europe getting drunk at conferences with other scholars in my field? Not even close. But as I sit in my cold, basement adjunct office right now mad that I wasn't informed my 8am class was cancelled due to snow until 7:30 and I was already here, I begin to wonder if it was all worth it. And, not to sound like a dick, I don't want to hear a bunch of people try to make me feel better about it and myself. It just feels kinda shitty, and I think that thatjewishgirl was trying to express a frustration with the process and the shittyness of having to admit that I'm not going to do this for a living. I will continue reading and writing, but I'm not shelling out cash to fly to conferences anymore and I'm never writing another goddamn seminar paper again. And that feeling is pretty shitty. I'm sorry if you don't want to hear it for whatever reason, but it sucks. Sad face Friday. The point of forums like this is for us to be happy together and celebrate acceptances but it's also for us to sad together, and admit defeat and sorrow over said defeat. And, hell, even anger over it. 

 

And, as a final note, what's this about CV "pumping"? No conference and no pub is too small -- it won't keep you out of a program for listing it on your CV. Honestly, an adcom will read your CV in 2.3 seconds -- I doubt they're going to sit and scrutinize and laugh that you got in published in Purple Monkey Weekly two years ago. They probably skim that section, might be excited to see a few good national presentations, but I highly doubt that if everything else on in profile is good, they would not admit you because your CV lists "small" conferences or whatever. Yes, the WS and SOP are most important, and just attending conferences is not going to change that, but I doubt an adcom would "tricked" by a candidate listing less-than-desirable pubs on a CV.

[Two Espressos]

Straw men, everywhere, Batman!

 

/thread

 

Jesus fucking christ, guys.

[Two Espressos]

As far as the M.A. is concerned: I think it would be a good option for me.  I really just want to continue thinking about the topics that interest me at a very high level, and I'm perfectly at ease with pursuing an M.A. in either literature or philosophy and then going into a completely different field of work, a sensible option considering what has been said prior about the academic job market for English M.A.'s.  Of course, if I am accepted into a Ph.D. program this cycle, I will gladly go and set my sights on an academic career, but I'm at peace now with the possibility of being rejected across the board, likely because I've received some good academic, but not admissions-related, news this week.

[waparys]

Apparently my one-year master's counts for very little. Urgh. 

[rems]

As far as the M.A. is concerned: I think it would be a good option for me.  I really just want to continue thinking about the topics that interest me at a very high level, and I'm perfectly at ease with pursuing an M.A. in either literature or philosophy and then going into a completely different field of work, a sensible option considering what has been said prior about the academic job market for English M.A.'s.  Of course, if I am accepted into a Ph.D. program this cycle, I will gladly go and set my sights on an academic career, but I'm at peace now with the possibility of being rejected across the board, likely because I've received some good academic, but not admissions-related, news this week.

 

I would definitely go for an MA if your PhD's don't work out -- I think it's a good option. You can always apply again when you're finished, or you can do something else and have an easier time finding a job because you'll have a Masters -- doesn't matter what field it's in. 

 

I by no means want to suggest that one should not get an MA if they would like -- I'm really glad I did. But, I do think it's worth knowing that MA's don't typically lead to jobs in academics, even teaching at community colleges, and going in thinking that can be dangerous. 

[practical cat]

As far as the M.A. is concerned: I think it would be a good option for me. I really just want to continue thinking about the topics that interest me at a very high level, and I'm perfectly at ease with pursuing an M.A. in either literature or philosophy and then going into a completely different field of work, a sensible option considering what has been said prior about the academic job market for English M.A.'s. Of course, if I am accepted into a Ph.D. program this cycle, I will gladly go and set my sights on an academic career, but I'm at peace now with the possibility of being rejected across the board, likely because I've received some good academic, but not admissions-related, news this week.

Congrats on the good news, whatever it is! I hope you get some good admissions-related news soon too.

I think I have still got another good cycle left in me if this one doesn't work out (please let it I do not want to do this again) but I'm taking steps toward a realistic Plan B that doesn't necessarily involve teaching. I'm going into this because of the love of research and I know it's a gamble even if I DO get in but I REALLY don't want to end up teaching high school. That's what I am doing right now and I don't think this particular institution is for me long term.

[InHacSpeVivo]

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?

 

I think this was lost in the other discussion related to MAs, etc., so I thought I'd come back to it and throw in my two cents.

 

In looking through the records of professors with whom I want to work, yes, most of them graduated from a top program for their PhD, but I have found plenty of cases where someone from a lower-ranked undergrad got into a phenomenal PhD program in his or her field. I'm sure a "big name" undergrad can help, especially if your advisor has connections at other programs or your department has the funding to give undergrads opportunities they might otherwise have, but, honestly, I think the location of the PhD matters much more in getting a job than undergrad does in getting into a grad program that is a good fit.

 

Also, I think it's important to note that this is exclusively the grad department reputation. Bowling Green, for example, is consistently in the top ten for American Studies, but their English program is currently third-tier. I've come across tons of BGSU grads at the top AmStu programs, but not nearly as many English grads in top-rated English programs. All that being said, this may be more of a result of the opportunities PhD students at well-funded programs have compared to lower-ranked, typically less-supported departments.

 

FWIW, I went to a higher-ranked school and, so far, have two real (and one implied) rejections and no acceptances! So, it just comes down to a lot of this process being a roll of the dice. Sorry for the rambling, that's just my thoughts at the moment, mostly shared to give me a few minutes away from thinking about the fact it's been another week without any positive signs.

 

Speaking of, I was out of upvotes for today, but thank you SO much for your post, rems. I'm becoming increasingly depressed about this whole thing, and, as awful as this sounds, it's nice to hear things aren't daisies and roses for everyone but me.

[jazzyd]

This is probably horrible of me, but I automatically eliminated any program that required the subject test. It's the devil. Fortunately, there were a surprising number of programs that would be a good match, so having this as an auto-eliminator was pretty helpful. Though, yes, I realize it's awful of me.

 

I'm now starting to wish I had done the same. The test went so horribly for me and it's such a glaring weakness that I'm now discounting any program I applied to (a good many) that required it. And that's really just a waste of money, hope, and heartbreak. Duke, UVA, Berkeley, UCLA (all whom I've heard nary a peep from, but personally know someone--a possible medievalist--who has) all required it.

 

Staying hopeful though! It helped that my school just beat the #1 bball team in the nation, heh.

[InHacSpeVivo]

Good luck jazzy! And congrats so far; from here it seems like you did everything right at this app cycle!

 

It sounds cavalier to disregard schools for a simple test, but I took it as an UG and did horribly, so I can't even imagine what would happen now that I'm a few years removed from school. Honestly, in doing my grad school research I read solid explanations from several fantastic departments for not requiring the subject test, and it's good to see a lot of top programs recognize it's flawed.

 

As other have mentioned, though, it's not a strategy I'd recommend for most, as I do think you can make up for it in other parts of your app (and clearly you have with acceptances at two AMAZING programs!!!!).

[lewisthesamteenth]

As regards the Subject Test: the test itself blows. So much. I took it 2.5 years out of undergrad and did reasonably well (88th percentile), but it is such a marathon that I am dreading the prospect of doing it again. The first 100 questions aren't THAT bad; it's the last 130 that are the worst.

 

That being said, I think there is also some merit to the process of preparing for the test. I learned SO much in studying for the test, read so many great works that I was never required to read during my undergraduate years, and get some great insight into the overall trajectory of the canon; in a word, it really furthered my passion (for lack of a better word) for literature, and liberated me from my 20th-century obsession. The Norton anthologies are underrated !!!

 

But I'll repeat: the test itself BLOWS: such an emotional roller-coaster. The only questions that seem justifiable are the ones you know right-off-the-bat, the rest make you say, "Who the hell needs to know that?"

[chaucerettescs]

As regards the Subject Test: the test itself blows. So much. I took it 2.5 years out of undergrad and did reasonably well (88th percentile), but it is such a marathon that I am dreading the prospect of doing it again. The first 100 questions aren't THAT bad; it's the last 130 that are the worst.

 

That being said, I think there is also some merit to the process of preparing for the test. I learned SO much in studying for the test, read so many great works that I was never required to read during my undergraduate years, and get some great insight into the overall trajectory of the canon; in a word, it really furthered my passion (for lack of a better word) for literature, and liberated me from my 20th-century obsession. The Norton anthologies are underrated !!!

 

But I'll repeat: the test itself BLOWS: such an emotional roller-coaster. The only questions that seem justifiable are the ones you know right-off-the-bat, the rest make you say, "Who the hell needs to know that?"

 

Haha, it really does. Studying for it is frustrating, especially when we each have our own subconcentrations (and that is what is expected of us). You just have to hope your version of the exam matches up. I'm a Victorianist/genre studies student and my copy of the exam was nearly all about Medieval lit and 20th century poetry. I got by fine, but I spent the whole test period swearing under my breath.

[jazzyd]

Good luck jazzy! And congrats so far; from here it seems like you did everything right at this app cycle!

 

It sounds cavalier to disregard schools for a simple test, but I took it as an UG and did horribly, so I can't even imagine what would happen now that I'm a few years removed from school. Honestly, in doing my grad school research I read solid explanations from several fantastic departments for not requiring the subject test, and it's good to see a lot of top programs recognize it's flawed.

 

As other have mentioned, though, it's not a strategy I'd recommend for most, as I do think you can make up for it in other parts of your app (and clearly you have with acceptances at two AMAZING programs!!!!).

 

Yeah, I was so glad that Chicago doesn't require the subject test, in fact I think they mention that they don't even consider it. The test is just so dated, it's almost as superfluous as the GRE General.

 

As regards the Subject Test: the test itself blows. So much. I took it 2.5 years out of undergrad and did reasonably well (88th percentile), but it is such a marathon that I am dreading the prospect of doing it again. The first 100 questions aren't THAT bad; it's the last 130 that are the worst.

 

That being said, I think there is also some merit to the process of preparing for the test. I learned SO much in studying for the test, read so many great works that I was never required to read during my undergraduate years, and get some great insight into the overall trajectory of the canon; in a word, it really furthered my passion (for lack of a better word) for literature, and liberated me from my 20th-century obsession. The Norton anthologies are underrated !!!

 

But I'll repeat: the test itself BLOWS: such an emotional roller-coaster. The only questions that seem justifiable are the ones you know right-off-the-bat, the rest make you say, "Who the hell needs to know that?"

 

Haha, it really does. Studying for it is frustrating, especially when we each have our own subconcentrations (and that is what is expected of us). You just have to hope your version of the exam matches up. I'm a Victorianist/genre studies student and my copy of the exam was nearly all about Medieval lit and 20th century poetry. I got by fine, but I spent the whole test period swearing under my breath.

 

I'm saying this as a person who dabbled in calculus, chemistry, and computer science freshman year, that subject test was by far the hardest test I've ever taken in my life. Half of the questions go past even identification... it's like "The person referred to in this poem excerpt also wrote which of the following?" or "Which of the following poems below also contains the allusion found in lns 3-4 of this poem?" Uhhhhhhhhhh.... I would have given anything to trade with the woman next to me taking the Psychology subject test.

Edited February 8, 2013 by jazzy dubois

[jmcgee]

I am now completely shame-spiraling over my CV.  I'm embarassed to even admit this, but I am in the second year of my master's, and I haven't presented at a single conference.  I've been immersed in the work but have, apparently, been pathetically oblivous to the professionalization aspect of grad school.  I've been pretty positive for a while now that I'll be reapplying next year, and I'm fine with this, as I've learned sooooo much this cycle, but my question is, will I even have enough time by next fall to attend the number of conferences necessary to render my CV acceptable?  I am scrambling now to find relevant ones and have one, maybe two, on my radar.   

[Troppman]

I am now completely shame-spiraling over my CV.  I'm embarassed to even admit this, but I am in the second year of my master's, and I haven't presented at a single conference.  I've been immersed in the work but have, apparently, been pathetically oblivous to the professionalization aspect of grad school.  I've been pretty positive for a while now that I'll be reapplying next year, and I'm fine with this, as I've learned sooooo much this cycle, but my question is, will I even have enough time by next fall to attend the number of conferences necessary to render my CV acceptable?  I am scrambling now to find relevant ones and have one, maybe two, on my radar.   

For what it is worth,

I am also an MA student and I do have a "good" CV: multiple peer-reviewed publications, multiple major conference presentations, invited lectures, language immersion, and so forth. I also have not been accepted to a single school this application season. All of this to say that the whole process seems radically contingent and I have a scrotum on my chin. 

Edited February 8, 2013 by StephanieDelacour

[cbttcher]

I am now completely shame-spiraling over my CV.  I'm embarassed to even admit this, but I am in the second year of my master's, and I haven't presented at a single conference.  I've been immersed in the work but have, apparently, been pathetically oblivous to the professionalization aspect of grad school.  I've been pretty positive for a while now that I'll be reapplying next year, and I'm fine with this, as I've learned sooooo much this cycle, but my question is, will I even have enough time by next fall to attend the number of conferences necessary to render my CV acceptable?  I am scrambling now to find relevant ones and have one, maybe two, on my radar.   

 

Am I getting two MA degrees at the same time - one international, one US - and I haven't presented at a conference either. Though I think that it's mostly my advisor's fault here in the US. She had us write abstracts and then look for conferences that fit the abstracts. So that we would "write about things we like." Funny thing is my topic was too specific and there's only a limited amount of scholarship on it. I got rejected by NEMLA and the panel at the ACLA for which I had been a shoe in has been cancelled because of too few submissions. I couldn't get into another panel at the ACLA because it was again too specific. But I don't think that it's the end of the world if you don't have a conference on your CV.

[NowMoreSerious]

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

Randomly? Dammit I hope I'm not next. I'm always terrible at dice throwing and roulette and lose my underwear whenever I go to Vegas.

[figsmcfigs]

If you want meaningful CV padding, I think the absolute best thing you can do is learn another language, ideally a classical language or French or German. You will stand out brilliantly among all these monolinguals and it will greatly benefit your scholarship... Now I just have to take my own advice...

[cbttcher]

If you want meaningful CV padding, I think the absolute best thing you can do is learn another language, ideally a classical language or French or German. You will stand out brilliantly among all these monolinguals and it will greatly benefit your scholarship... Now I just have to take my own advice...

 

Yes, I think languages really help a great deal usually. I just hope that they'll also help me...

[squire_western]

If I can jump here, what I think thatjewishgirl (that makes me feel weird like we're on the playground and I'm pointing at her, saying "Now what that Jewish girl over there meant was...") ORIGINALLY meant is that after all this time and effort spent in academia, it feels like a waste at this point to be rejected from so many places. Honestly, I feel the exact same way. I'm already an adjunct, and I don't want to keep doing this so after these applications, I'm finished with academia. I think that's what she was originally bemoaning -- not having an MA (that's what we're arguing about that this point right?). Having an MA can't hurt your chances of getting PhD, but I have an MA in literature, not teaching or tech writing or creative writing or whatever -- literature. What the fuck am I supposed to do with that? I can work in insurance and I can work in an office somewhere pushing paper. I could apply to a professional program. Honestly, I might just get certified to teach high school and go down that route. Or I might go into administration. So I have options. But I've been working towards this goal for, say, 5 years now and I've shelled out thousands of dollars to attend conferences all over the world, I was a grad student, a GTA, and I had a side job just to make ends meet (my program was fully funded, but that doesn't mean much) so I came out with no friends anymore because I literally worked seven days a week 365 a year for this. And now, after all this time, all this effort, I get shut out. I've already been rejected from two places -- two places I thought were a good fit -- and I don't see an acceptance coming from the other four anytime soon. 

 

Do I have any reason to assume these rejections? No, but I am. Do I "regret" getting an MA? No. Do I "regret" all that time I got to spend in Europe getting drunk at conferences with other scholars in my field? Not even close. But as I sit in my cold, basement adjunct office right now mad that I wasn't informed my 8am class was cancelled due to snow until 7:30 and I was already here, I begin to wonder if it was all worth it. And, not to sound like a dick, I don't want to hear a bunch of people try to make me feel better about it and myself. It just feels kinda shitty, and I think that thatjewishgirl was trying to express a frustration with the process and the shittyness of having to admit that I'm not going to do this for a living. I will continue reading and writing, but I'm not shelling out cash to fly to conferences anymore and I'm never writing another goddamn seminar paper again. And that feeling is pretty shitty. I'm sorry if you don't want to hear it for whatever reason, but it sucks. Sad face Friday. The point of forums like this is for us to be happy together and celebrate acceptances but it's also for us to sad together, and admit defeat and sorrow over said defeat. And, hell, even anger over it. 

 

And, as a final note, what's this about CV "pumping"? No conference and no pub is too small -- it won't keep you out of a program for listing it on your CV. Honestly, an adcom will read your CV in 2.3 seconds -- I doubt they're going to sit and scrutinize and laugh that you got in published in Purple Monkey Weekly two years ago. They probably skim that section, might be excited to see a few good national presentations, but I highly doubt that if everything else on in profile is good, they would not admit you because your CV lists "small" conferences or whatever. Yes, the WS and SOP are most important, and just attending conferences is not going to change that, but I doubt an adcom would "tricked" by a candidate listing less-than-desirable pubs on a CV.

 

I've reached my quota of up votes and I don't understand gifs, but I really appreciate your post. Especially after my recent publication in Purple Monkey Weekly. 

[thatjewishgirl]

If I can jump here, what I think thatjewishgirl (that makes me feel weird like we're on the playground and I'm pointing at her, saying "Now what that Jewish girl over there meant was...") 

I live in Oklahoma... that statement is my life!

 

And yes, I am glad to see you feel my adjunct pain. And your clarification of my original point is accurate--I would hate to see someone get their hopes up and go down the adjunct path and get stuck there like me and a lot of my friends. And I think I've been to that creepy adjunct basement. It always smells like microwave pasta.