HHEoS Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 (edited) But then F-ing UVA wants TWO totalling 25, so I am just screwed there. They are gonna get two choppy, awkward samples. Yup, this requirement is particularly annoying. It's the reason I didn't apply to UVA last year. Here's what I did though: I gave them my 20-21-page sample that I'm using for all other programs and submitted a 4-5 pager as the second one. The department's webpage says you can submit a pair like this, and while I'm sure it's not what they envisioned when they came up with this brilliant requirement, it does meet their specifications. For me, this was a better alternative than submitting two choppy pieces. It may work for you also, if you have something 4-5 pages long, or can pull off writing something like that between now and the deadline. Edited December 6, 2012 by HHEoS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two Espressos Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 Ok, this is just a general (and probably extremely ignorant) question for everyone out there: why are you applying to schools that aren't ranked in the top 20 or 30 programs? Why bother applying to schools that are relatively unknown, and might not even fund you? Is this really something that would lead to an academic career down the road? Or are you applying for a PhD without plans to go into academia? In which case, why are you applying? From what I've been led to understand, by my advisors and professors in general, and by articles about the academic job market, if you want a chance at an academic position after graduating a doctoral program you MUST go to a top-ranking school in your discipline. And on top of that, you have to do extremely well in the program, and publish a lot, and write a great dissertation. So why would you cripple yourself from the start by beginning your academic life in an obscure department? Just wondering... You're probably going to piss a lot of people off with this post, but I do agree with you, to an extent. All the schools to which I'm applying, except for one, are in the top 20. I might be crippling my admissions chances by so doing (I have an average GPA and GRE scores, I come from a random state school, etc.), but I either go to a strong program or not at all. rwarzala 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rems Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 You're probably going to piss a lot of people off with this post, but I do agree with you, to an extent. All the schools to which I'm applying, except for one, are in the top 20. I might be crippling my admissions chances by so doing (I have an average GPA and GRE scores, I come from a random state school, etc.), but I either go to a strong program or not at all. I would say ditto to both pissing people off and having a good point. All of mine are top thirty except Buffalo (but UB seems to be a weird exception to the rule), and Colorado. I'm honestly applying to Colorado because I want to live in Boulder, one, and they have a guy who does graphic novels. No joke -- I'm going for comic books. It's also kinda my "safety" school -- I know that you shouldn't really have safety schools for PhD or whatever, but I wanted one lower rank just to see if could get in somewhere. If I get full funding, even if I don't get a job afterwards teaching at a big R1, I think I'll still be cool with it (says I 20 years from now working at Starbucks). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rems Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 ps, does it piss anyone off that UB's website says a "substantial" sample. WHAT THE FUCK BUFFALO? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two Espressos Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 All of mine are top thirty except Buffalo (but UB seems to be a weird exception to the rule) I know, right? I applied to Buffalo too for several reasons, the weird exception-to-the-rule bit among them. rems 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Datatape Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 Ok, this is just a general (and probably extremely ignorant) question for everyone out there: why are you applying to schools that aren't ranked in the top 20 or 30 programs? Why bother applying to schools that are relatively unknown, and might not even fund you? Is this really something that would lead to an academic career down the road? Or are you applying for a PhD without plans to go into academia? In which case, why are you applying? Because I have a weird cross-section of interests and I'd rather go to a school that's lower ranked but very strong in what I want to research/study than a higher ranked one where I'd be struggling to find anyone who had the slightest interest in my work. Ultimately, it's not about where you go to get the Ph.D., it's what you do with it. damequixote, wreckofthehope, asleepawake and 1 other 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sebastiansteddy Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 Ok, this is just a general (and probably extremely ignorant) question for everyone out there: why are you applying to schools that aren't ranked in the top 20 or 30 programs? Yes, I'd say extremely ignorant.... or at least just ignorant. Rankings are important, yes, but there are other factors to consider. Take Buffalo, for example, which may not be in the top 20 in rankings, but it is very highly ranked and renowned for theory (particularly psychoanalysis). When it comes time to get a job, those hiring are well aware of the strengths of particular programs, which I think are just as important as the raw number. Also, many schools outside the top 20 still provide funding... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two Espressos Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 Because I have a weird cross-section of interests and I'd rather go to a school that's lower ranked but very strong in what I want to research/study than a higher ranked one where I'd be struggling to find anyone who had the slightest interest in my work. Ultimately, it's not about where you go to get the Ph.D., it's what you do with it. I agree with your first sentence and emphatically disagree with your second. The latter isn't rooted in reality whatsoever, as much as I'd like to believe it's the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sebastiansteddy Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 Because I have a weird cross-section of interests and I'd rather go to a school that's lower ranked but very strong in what I want to research/study than a higher ranked one where I'd be struggling to find anyone who had the slightest interest in my work. Ultimately, it's not about where you go to get the Ph.D., it's what you do with it. I agree with this (both sentences). I have met extremely successful professors who have earned their PhDs from schools you wouldn't expect... N. Katherine Hayles, who comes to mind, got hers from Rochester. Duke bought her from UCLA... in other words, she got her PhD from Rochester, then eventually had UCLA and Duke bidding for her, because it's what she did with her PhD, not where she got it from. I'm sure there are MANY other example, but I am using her in my thesis, and that's what comes to mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rems Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 I agree -- ranking does matter. The faulty logic behind thinking it's what you do with it only works if you assume that all those Ph.D. candidates at Berkeley and Harvard are just sitting on their asses not doing anything. Which, I assure you, ain't the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two Espressos Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 I agree -- ranking does matter. The faulty logic behind thinking it's what you do with it only works if you assume that all those Ph.D. candidates at Berkeley and Harvard are just sitting on their asses not doing anything. Which, I assure you, ain't the case. Yes, indeed. And it's common knowledge--and just common sense-- that when a random, unknown university receives 300+ applications for a tenure-track position, they're going to have to weed people out somehow. They weed out everyone not from an elite program because they can, while still having to contend with dozens of equally qualified people for that one coveted spot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Sparrow Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 Yes, indeed. And it's common knowledge--and just common sense-- that when a random, unknown university receives 300+ applications for a tenure-track position, they're going to have to weed people out somehow. They weed out everyone not from an elite program because they can, while still having to contend with dozens of equally qualified people for that one coveted spot. Food for thought: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/12/05/study-questions-whether-departments-are-too-focused-hiring-graduates-elite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bfat Posted December 6, 2012 Author Share Posted December 6, 2012 I was talking with some of my professors/letter-writers about the fact that some of the elite (top ranked) programs focus more on "generalist" education, which actually makes it harder to get a job. I'm pretty close with the assistant chair of the English department, who runs the search committee for new profs, and she said they're always turning people down from Harvard and Yale because their work just isn't as compelling. Those programs are more conservative and can therefore be a little outdated in terms of the job market. Of course, there are people in those places doing amazing work and moving on to do great, innovative things--I don't want to put them down--but the name itself won't necessarily get you a job. I was strongly advised against applying to HYP for these reasons (and also the exorbitant app fees, slim chances, and, in the case of Harvard, terrible comprehensive exam requirements--think Lit GRE times 500). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DontHate Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 I was strongly advised against applying to HYP for these reasons (and also the exorbitant app fees, slim chances, and, in the case of Harvard, terrible comprehensive exam requirements--think Lit GRE times 500). So you were discouraged from applying partly because your advisors didn't think you would get in? And that once you got in, the exams would be too hard for you? That seems like a pretty nice way of saying that perhaps you aren't the best candidate for grad school. Datatape, IG-88, DontHate and 5 others 1 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IG-88 Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 No it doesn't. ProfLorax 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Datatape Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 (edited) So you were discouraged from applying partly because your advisors didn't think you would get in? And that once you got in, the exams would be too hard for you? That seems like a pretty nice way of saying that perhaps you aren't the best candidate for grad school. Never mind, not going to lower myself to that level. Edited December 6, 2012 by Datatape DontHate, wreckofthehope and Datatape 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
practical cat Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 I was just going to cite the study Phil Sparrow linked to because I highly, highly doubt the market is any different/better for Literature than Political Science. But the thing is, there are non-R1 jobs for PhDs. They're not plentiful and they're not prestigious but being a superstar is not the only option. I tailored my list with the idea that I do want to go for the top of the field and with the knowledge that none of my potential schools should act as barriers to that. And I really, really want to go to any/all of my schools, even knowing that some are technically better "fits" than others. wreckofthehope 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rems Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 I'm super interested in NOT editing my writing sample which means I'm too interested in this thread. That being said... Don't be mean. Secondly, yes, rank matters. Can you be a super star at a lower-ranked U and still get a baller job? Yes. Can you go to Harvard and still be an idiot (coughcoughgeorgewbushcoughcough)? Yes. Do we live in a world where nothing is black and white, and there's exceptions to every rule? Yes. Do we still live in a world with rules? Yes. PHD Y U NO EASY??? antecedent, damequixote, isawnewton and 1 other 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
practical cat Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 + not finding Harvard to be the best path? So very, very irrelevant to success in grad school or academia. The only thing being advised against applying to Harvard is indicative of is not being a good fit (for whatever reason) for Harvard. But, lol. I have no idea why I'm taking that comment seriously? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bfat Posted December 6, 2012 Author Share Posted December 6, 2012 So you were discouraged from applying partly because your advisors didn't think you would get in? And that once you got in, the exams would be too hard for you? That seems like a pretty nice way of saying that perhaps you aren't the best candidate for grad school. so not biting Datatape, HHEoS, IG-88 and 1 other 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
practical cat Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 Do we still live in a world with rules? Yes. Rules are so pre-poststructuralist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rems Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 Wait, isn't poststructuralism dead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DontHate Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 Fit is one thing, but when your advisor tells you that you shouldn't apply to a school because the fees are too high to justify your slim-to-nil chances of acceptance, that's something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DontHate Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 The fees are always too damn high! I just think that the PhD is supposed to be a pre-professional degree, and the profession it is preparing us for is professing. Ha! Anyway, if one cannot get said job with said degree, then said degree becomes something quite different. And what I was asking about earlier was what this degree means to those people who aren't looking to become professors (or who are putting themselves into a position that will make becoming a professor quite difficult, making me assume that they have other plans in mind). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rems Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 Direct quote from my DGS: "Don't go to Princeton. Those guys are dicks." This doesn't have to do with anything, I just thought it was funny. Datatape 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now