Anyone else gearing up for Oct. 13?

[practical cat]

And the field is English literature, it stands to reason that British authors would be privileged.

THIS is why the name of the field is a problem. Because it's not at all representative of what the field actually is.

But the TEST is called "Literature in English," NOT "English Literature," so no. The reasoning does not still stand.

[thestage]

Because it's not at all representative of what the field actually is.

except it is. trying telling an admissions committee that you are interested in German romantic literature. see where that will get you.

[practical cat]

except it is. trying telling an admissions committee that you are interested in German romantic literature. see where that will get you.

If I were genuinely interested in Goethe, I'd give it a go.

[thestage]

you should be genuinely interested in Goethe, he's great. but if you expect to do serious Goethe scholarship as a PhD student, you should 1) be fluent in German, 2) apply to comp lit programs

[practical cat]

Your comment on German romanticism was a fairly blatant attempt at setting up a straw argument -- as my original statement had nothing to do with non-English-language literature as the British aren't the only English speakers in the world -- and I obviously shouldn't have bitten. Though my problematizing of the name does speak to my desire to blur the distinction between "English" and Comparative Literature.

[thestage]

if your original comment was meant to speak to non British English literature, then my original response still stands: it's called English literature, the British will naturally be privileged. there was a period from ohh, 1300-1800, in which there was no English literature that was not also British literature. if you want to say that the test over represents, say, pre Romantic literature, then you're entitled to say so (I might agree), but that's a different matter entirely.

[practical cat]

And, as I originally said, the problem with the name of the field is that it allows such assumptions to persist. Just because British literature may/may not dominate within the field as it, does not mean that's how it ought to be (and I'm not convinced it DOES dominate anymore). And the commonly-accepted name of the field is certainly an insufficient argument for that remaining as is. There's a reason I persist in referencing the field as "Literature" rather than "English" and that's because I believe that the privileging of British literature is a problem.

[rems]

The field of studying literature written in English is simply called "English" and not literature because it was termed as such in British schools in India. It was termed this to make sure that Indian children were fully aware that they were reading English literature (because it's the best) as a means to promote British society over Indian society. It carried all the way into the British school system, and then over into the USA school system. Hegemony at its purest.

So, both of you are correct but that doesn't make it any less depressing.

[practical cat]

The field of studying literature written in English is simply called "English" and not literature because it was termed as such in British schools in India. It was termed this to make sure that Indian children were fully aware that they were reading English literature (because it's the best) as a means to promote British society over Indian society. It carried all the way into the British school system, and then over into the USA school system. Hegemony at its purest.

So, both of you are correct but that doesn't make it any less depressing.

Yes. That's precisely why I don't call it such and precisely why I don't think the name should be indicative of what the field actually is! (I mean, my linguistic habit doesn't fix much more than making me feel better but bygones.) Thank you for saying it so well!

[waparys]

TOMORROW TOMORROW TOMORROW TOMORROW

I'm actually terrified. I really think I bombed it. Dear literature God, please let it be at least the 50th percentile.

[Datatape]

Oh, jeez, it is tomorrow, isn't it? I think I'm going back to bed.

[practical cat]

I'm honestly kind of excited. Not because I think I did we'll (I didn't) but because I just want to be able to know for sure where I'm actually sending the scores so I can get those "recommended" or "not required" schools' apps done.

[practical cat]

Not to be That Guy, but they're up online now. My scores are not end of the world bad but, oh, there have been better percentiles in my life.

[Datatape]

Hmph. Not the end of the world, no. Probably not keeping me out of anywhere, no. Still less than I had hoped after I felt so good having just taken the exam.

[JeremiahParadise]

Hmph. Not the end of the world, no. Probably not keeping me out of anywhere, no. Still less than I had hoped after I felt so good having just taken the exam.

Same here. Meh/woof/ugh. I still feel good about everything else, I guess. Just a bit disappointed, really.

[Datatape]

Yeah. It's certainly nowhere near as bad as I feared my score might be, it's just disappointing that it isn't higher, especially with all those practice tests and all the cramming I went through. All this is making me a bit of a cranky pants.

[t1racyjacks]

I hated the GREs so much. Took them in 2010 without studying at all -- I just can't 'practice' when it comes to these sorts of tests. I refuse to retake them but it probably has impacted me negatively already. But I just can't. I'd rather write 2 dissertations. Scaled I'm in the 93rd percentile for verbal and 35th percentile for maths (yes, that's what happens when you ignore maths for years and don't practice for the GRE), 5.0 for analytical writing and 70th percentile for lit GRE. I see that many people who got admitted into my first choice got higher, but I just can't bring myself to do the GREs again.

[practical cat]

The timing on the return of these scores is excellent. December 10 really is the best time to be feeling kind of mediocre.

[mostlytoasty]

I had pretty mediocre/bad GREs last season and still managed to get waitlisted at 3 schools... oh... waitlisted. Nevermind, I still got rejected. But if it eases anyone's mind, one was pretty close to the top 10 and the other two in the 20s. Would it have helped if I had amazing GREs? Maybe, maybe not. One DGS I talked to didn't say anything about my GREs, just the fact that others were further along in their field of interest than I was. I tried retaking the general test again and scored pretty much the same. I feel like with standardized testing, I hit a plateau and no matter how intensely I study, I just fare the same + all the anxiety. I'm over it!

[waparys]

I was so convinced I'd for sure score below 50th percentile. I'm relieved but still frustrated at the ETS. The practice tests and the cramming I did were utterly useless.

So now I'm just trying to figure out if I did well or poorly. I just don't know what's considered okay and what's considered strong, etc. So Harvard lists its average score as 650, right? I know Harvard isn't "number 1" or anything, but if we consider that a "great" score then where does the "good" score range fall?

[TripWillis]

there was a period from ohh, 1300-1800, in which there was no English literature that was not also British literature.

False.