Program Specific Questions - Fall 2013

[DontHate]

Never mind, not going to lower myself to that level.

But you already did! And turkeys never forget. Especially not turkeys wearing hats.

dum dum dummmmmmmmm

Seriously though, forums are such fun!

[practical cat]

Wait, isn't poststructuralism dead?

It's a Schrodinger's Cat kind of thing.

Anecdotally, I know someone who went to Princeton! He's not a dick. Your DGS must be wrong.

[rems]

It's a Schrodinger's Cat kind of thing.

Anecdotally, I know someone who went to Princeton! He's not a dick. Your DGS must be wrong.

I WILL BY NO MEANS RELINQUISH MY STATEMENT. I ASSUME THAT I, AND ONLY I, AM CORRECT ABOUT EVERYTHING.

[DontHate]

Anecdotally, I know someone who went to Princeton! He's not a dick. Your DGS must be wrong.

I know a buttload of people who went to Princeton. Some of them are dicks. I think the eating clubs are way stupid, but as a grad student I don't know if that matters.

[bfat]

UGH, okay, I'll bite.

My advisors/professors actually said that I'd have a decent shot at H/Y/P (as much as anyone, when they receive 500 applications for 12 slots), but that it's not worth it because the programs are stodgy and boring and produce generalists. Therefore they don't justify the $100+ for the app fee.

Of course, I am still applying to top 20 programs. Just not those.

Direct quote from my DGS: "Don't go to Princeton. Those guys are dicks."

My advisor said, "Dont' go to Yale. New Haven is a shit-hole."

ETA: ugh, I'm gonna get shit for the stodgy and boring comment, aren't I?

Edited December 6, 2012 by bfat

[practical cat]

You guys, now I'm jealous that none of my people said outrageous things about specific programs.

[rems]

ETA: ugh, I'm gonna get shit for the stodgy and boring comment, aren't I?

I don't think anyone will disagree.

[practical cat]

ETA: ugh, I'm gonna get shit for the stodgy and boring comment, aren't I?

No shit from me (I am applying to Harvard). I feel like the conservative nature of the department/institution would be my biggest barrier to both being accepted and attending. (I have fairly radical, non-normative interests.) BUT, as someone with really out of the box interests, I am actually really drawn to programs that will give me a really generalized education. I WANT to be able to also competently teach more traditional classes because it would make me both more hireable and more useful (as well as better at my own field). I feel confident that I can cobble out some specialization at both Harvard and Berkeley.

Pros and cons, I guess. WE ARE ALL JUST DOING THE COST/BENEFIT MATH AND IT IS NOT GOING TO BE THE SAME FOR EVERYONE. (This yell is generally-directed.)

[sebastiansteddy]

Can I move on to something else?

For programs that require personal history statements (diversity statements, "pity" statements, etc.) how important are they? They can't be as important as the academic statement or writing sample, can they?

For the sake of my sanity, can someone just assure me that they're not really that important, even if they are? Thanks, appreciate it guys.

[practical cat]

Nope. They're not as important.

[sebastiansteddy]

Nope. They're not as important.

Thanks

[rems]

Can I move on to something else?

For programs that require personal history statements (diversity statements, "pity" statements, etc.) how important are they? They can't be as important as the academic statement or writing sample, can they?

For the sake of my sanity, can someone just assure me that they're not really that important, even if they are? Thanks, appreciate it guys.

From what I know (which isn't much), they can only help get you in, and typically don't keep you out. If it's were written in crayon and about how much you agree with the philosophies of the KKK, it might hurt you. Short of that, diversity statements only help your app.

[Phil Sparrow]

This is another reason that we shouldn't assume that Harvard and Yale are the "top" programs anymore just because they used to be. Going to a very, very well regarded program is extremely important; otherwise your chances of getting a not-totally-exploitative academic job after graduation are basically nonexistent. But the field of "elite" programs (in English, anyway) is changing and has changed dramatically in the last 15 years or so. The old big dogs are not so big anymore, whatever the obsession with "Ivies" here on Gradcafe might lead you to believe.

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).

Edited December 6, 2012 by Phil Sparrow

[justkeepswimming]

This is another reason that we shouldn't assume that Harvard and Yale are the "top" programs anymore just because they used to be. Going to a very, very well regarded program is extremely important; otherwise your chances of getting a not-totally-exploitative academic job after graduation are basically nonexistent. But the field of "elite" programs is changing and has changed dramatically in the last 15 years or so. The old big dogs are not so big anymore, whatever the obsession with "Ivies" here on Gradcafe might lead you to believe.

So what are the "elite" programs in your opinion? Just curious.

[practical cat]

I actually think that gradcafe exhibits less of a bias toward the "elite" programs than what I've experienced talking to my own professors/mentors/advisors.

[DontHate]

I agree, I feel like gradcafe is almost biased against elite programs. A lot of people on here aren't applying to any.

[rems]

HYP are typically for old-school, ivy-league types. Those programs are conservative, and they promote learning a discipline that doesn't challenge anything. You will get a good education at these schools if that is your agenda. And I don't even mean that to sound bad or anything -- in my grad program, out of 10 we had at least 3 traditionalists who really admired programs like these. But, if you want to do cutting-edge, radical research, go to a big research university, like Stanford or Berkeley. That's why I don't have any Ivies on my list -- I want to do research, not repeat back to profs excerpts from their own books (okay, that was a little nasty).

[Swagato]

caw_caw_caw makes some decent points (and some less defensible ones), albeit not in the most diplomatic of tones.

For what it is worth, I'm an applicant to film and visual studies (with strong interests in 18th century lit/cult as well, which is why I have at least two interesting lit programs on my application list this season). I'm a re-applicant, and since obtaining my MA from UChicago, I've (I want to believe) done a hell of a lot in trying to "understand" academia (mainly in my fields, but in the humanities at large). My observations and impressions are all guided by my personal ambition, which is to obtain a TT position at a research university. Yes, I'm going for *that* apple.

Here are the things I believe are almost essential to at least positioning yourself as a competitive candidate for such jobs in the humanities:

1. Who did you work with?
   
   
2. Where did you work (this is obviously bound up with the previous question)?
   
   
3. What did you work on?
   

In that order. Someone mentioned Katherine Hayles. May I point out that A> N. Katherine Hayles is practically unique (I can only think of Brown's Wendy Chun offhand) in her mix of training; B> She earned her credentials in the bloody 70s. Robert Pippin, today, is one of the world's foremost philosophers. He's at Chicago. But you'll find that he does not have a starry pedigree either. Elaine Scarry, who took over the Aesthetics and General Th. of Value position at Harvard after Cavell, similarly does not come from a world-famous department. These are the exceptions. None of us, in all probability, is so special that these exceptions can be used as guidelines.

I don't claim to know the inside info for English/Lit. at HYP. I do know that Harvard's program for film and visual studies is utterly unique (which cuts both ways--it is simultaneously too new and too radical, while offering the possibility of developing unique specializations). On the other hand, Yale's film program is...a bit dated. So that's where I agree that we should not fetishize HYP (but didn't we always know that anyway)? At the same time, I just want to make it clear that names (institution, mentor) do matter, a whole hell of a lot.

Edited December 6, 2012 by Swagato

[practical cat]

That IS unfair. I think that radical ideas can happen anywhere. The work I would do at Harvard would be different than at Berkeley (and then again at any of the others) but it would not necessarily be lesser. (Or better.) I've totally produced really cool work with the strict formalist that I completely disagree with on literally everything and also really cool work with the departmental rebels. (And I think there are probably even a couple of each everywhere? I'd like to work with an array of traditionalists to total rebels if at all possible. But I also want to not be completely dependent upon the atmosphere of the department for informing my work, either. I'm something of a cherry-picker anyway and do not believe I will be subsumed whole sale by wherever I end up, if I end up somewhere.) These things are, for me, April decisions, not December decisions and I at least want to give myself the opportunity to make these calculations THEN. (You know, if any of these places will even have me.) I mean, Harvard MAY/not be for me but I'll let them make the first move (or not) on this one.

Quibble quibble quibble, sorry I can't really come down on a Side on this one even for myself.

[Swagato]

Academia is quite likely among the most politically charged of industries. Things are made worse by academic doublespeak (see: every LoR ever), and the cloak-and-dagger games that go on in various departments. Fairness has little to do with it. For every Greenblatt, Hansen (Miriam or Mark), there are undoubtedly dozens of people who have produced 'radical' scholarship, maybe even genuinely pathbreaking work. The numbers suggest that. However, it is simply not enough to have a great idea and a great paper. If you're not at the right department, you won't have the right greybeard backing you. Without the right greybeard backing you all the way into a Critical Inquiry publication, the best you might do is some obscure journal. So much for your radical scholarship.

That's where names matter. It may not be fair, but it's how the system works. I'm less concerned with reforming the system than with making sure I'm doing my best to survive within the system.

[rems]

[DontHate]

Why do I have to be diplomatic? I'm literally just asking simple questions. No one needs to get offended by them. If you can't explain why you're doing what you're doing, then you probably don't have a very good reason for doing it. The answer isn't to get offended, it's to get more self-aware about your own rationalizations.

[wreckofthehope]

I attend a school outside of the top 30 (US News English rankings, that is, which I am assuming is the reference point here - although we do better on the NRC rankings). I am certain that, had I attended Harvard, I would be able to be much more optimistic about the likelihood of landing a coveted R1 TT job. As it stands, though, I didn't get in to Harvard but I'm hardly hanging my head in despair. My department has a good placement record: around 65% of grads in TT jobs three years after graduating. I crunched the numbers before I accepted my offer because I wanted to make sure that I was making an acceptably mad decision, rather than a completely insane one. The jobs people from my department get are usually at small liberal arts colleges, regional four year universities and the occasional R1. I am completely comfortable with ANY of those being the outcome; in fact, I would be completely comfortable teaching at a CC (though I would prefer to teach at a four year college). In that sense, choosing my school doesn't seem like a terrible gamble to me. In addition, my school is strong in my sub-discipline and I work closely with a number of faculty here that are famous in their field, the students that these faculty members have advised and mentored have generally done very well on the market, another reason why I, personally, feel pretty comfortable about my TT chances, slim as they are (slim as they are for most of us).

Without a doubt, HYP (+ Berkeley, Stanford, and a few other schools) peeps have a great advantage on the market; that doesn't mean that the rest of us are completely without a chance. Take a glance at faculty lists from smaller colleges, regional universities etc - their rosters are certainly not filled with HYP grads (although there are always a few, at least). If you can't imagine working at one of these places, I'd say it is you who is disconnected from reality. This is where most people, even HYP grads, are going to end up.

Now, caw_caw_caw: you're in Comp Lit, which is a lot less competitive numbers wise at the application stage, it also has many fewer schools to choose from. So, when you're comparing a 30th ranked Comp Lit school with a 30th ranked English school, the scale is not the same. 30th ranked for Comp Lit is in the last 25% of ranked programs; whereas 30th ranked for English is somewhere near the top 25% of ranked programs. You're much more likely to be able to get in to HYP, purely on a numbers basis, than we in English are. You're also facing an even tougher job market than we are. So, in your case, I can see both why HYP and the likes seem more within reach and more essential. Good luck, I hope your season goes well.

Edited December 6, 2012 by wreckofthehope

[Swagato]

Why do I have to be diplomatic? I'm literally just asking simple questions. No one needs to get offended by them. If you can't explain why you're doing what you're doing, then you probably don't have a very good reason for doing it. The answer isn't to get offended, it's to get more self-aware about your own rationalizations.

Because how you say something will matter as much as what you have to say--especially if you intend to publish in notable journals and interact with notable people.

[waparys]

Am I a complete outlier for wanting to teach high school English? Yes I'm going for my PhD. I like to learn.