Program Specific Questions - Fall 2013

[DontHate]

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.

This is an internet forum. Not a peer-reviewed journal. I credit myself with the ability to distinguish between the two

[DontHate]

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

yes

[wreckofthehope]

This is interesting: Poli Sci departments ranked by placement.

[practical cat]

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

Nah. In fact, that's great.

[sunshan]

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

No, not at all! I've always told myself that if I end up teaching high school english, I will be totally fine!

[DontHate]

I attend a school outside of the top 30... 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...

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... 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.

In response, may I say the following things:

1. Thanks! That makes me feel wonderful right now. I know, rationally, that Comp Lit is smaller, but hearing that I have a better chance at the schools I'm applying to than an English PhD applicant is very soothing. I tend to forget how much foreign language scares people. I was an English major in undergrad, and that is just a completely glutted field. Of course, you have to remember that I'm probably competing with a lot more international applicants than you English guys.

2. There are indeed fewer jobs in Comp Lit departments, but I think there's actually a lot more jobs in Language departments. Possibly, in sum, more jobs than in English departments. This is what many Comp Lit programs train people for (particularly Columbia, where Comp Lit is only accesible as an interdisciplinary program through a national literature department). Comp Lit grad students teach language classes just as often as they TA literature courses. So the job market might not actually be tougher for me.

3. I still don't think that it's easier to get into top Comp Lit programs than it is for English. There may be fewer applicants, but they are expected to have a lot more skills coming in than an English applicant would be expected to have, particularly reading fluency in at least 3 foreign languages. And as I mentioned before, they are competing with foreign scholars who are native speakers of these languages. Also there are fewer spots. So on a purely numbers basis, it's probably just about the same. But I would like to think it's easier, just for my own peace of mind. So I'll just keep thinking that.

All empirical evidence keeps pointing to the fact that it's extremely hard to get a tenure track job coming out of an unknown school. So I think everything I've been saying is true. It's not meant to insult anyone. I don't know why people keep interpreting it that way. It's simply the truth. It's a lot more realistic to get a job coming from one of the 10 best programs in a given field than it is coming from elsewhere. If you can't get into one of those programs, it doesn't bode well for getting one of the even more competitive academic positions that you (along with all the top-10 grads) will need to apply for 5-7 years down the road.

[wreckofthehope]

2. There are indeed fewer jobs in Comp Lit departments, but I think there's actually a lot more jobs in Language departments. Possibly, in sum, more jobs than in English departments. This is what many Comp Lit programs train people for (particularly Columbia, where Comp Lit is only accesible as an interdisciplinary program through a national literature department). Comp Lit grad students teach language classes just as often as they TA literature courses. So the job market might not actually be tougher for me.

Take a look at the MLA jobs report...

Depending on your specialism, though, you may well be competitive for some English jobs too.

Edited December 6, 2012 by wreckofthehope

[DontHate]

And I'm not saying it's bad to get an English PhD in order to teach high school. I'm just saying it's unusual, and you will be overqualified for that position. People who want to teach high school generally just get a Master's and a teaching credential, and are out on the job market much faster, with less debt.

[Two Espressos]

Take a look at the MLA jobs report...

Exactly. The foreign languages have a far worse job market than English does (a recently tenured French professor at my university joked that she got "the last tenured position in the country."). And, like you stated earlier, caw_caw_caw, many students avoid foreign languages if at all possible, especially undergraduates.

[DontHate]

Take a look at the MLA jobs report...

Depending on your specialism, though, you may well be competitive for some English jobs too.

There are specific foreign language fields that are growing, even while many are being cut. And yes, a degree in Comp Lit would train someone for an English-language literature position as well.

[DontHate]

And, like you stated earlier, caw_caw_caw, many students avoid foreign languages if at all possible, especially undergraduates.

Foreign language is generally a requirement, so no matter how many undergrads try to avoid, universities still have to hire people to teach it.

[wreckofthehope]

Foreign language is generally a requirement, so no matter how many undergrads try to avoid, universities still have to hire people to teach it.

Yeah, but not TT staff.

[asleepawake]

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.

Well, this thread blew up while I was out today.

Allow me to turn the tables: why are you applying to only Ivies and 3 other very top programs? I doubt these programs are all great fits for you, and fit is extremely important. If you opened yourself up to Top 40 programs, and applied only to schools where you had a very great fit, you would have more success than basically just ripping the list of Top 10 schools and applying to those. This is what undergrad applicants do.

Job placement is actually very high in some lower ranked programs. North Dakota comes to mind. They have great job placement, but it is probably mostly to schools in the Dakotas, including smaller schools and CCs. If you're cool with this, why not apply to UND? You have a much better chance of getting in and decent job prospects. I imagine you are not cool with this. That's fine. But, ugh, somebody has to teach where it is cold.A lot of these programs also have very decent funding. It may or may not be the case in Comp Lit, but English programs are well-funded in general. I'm fully funded at a lower-ranked MA program.

"I still don't think that it's easier to get into top Comp Lit programs than it is for English. There may be fewer applicants..." <---- Basic failure to understand probability. If there are fewer applicants, you're more likely to get in, assuming a kind of base applicant level between the two disciplines (i.e. people in English are not doing much poorer work than those applying to Comp Lit). I know a lot of people in the humanities hate the maths, but this thing is a numbers game. If you apply to a school with 500 applications and 12 spots, you are unlikely to get in no matter what, even if you are in the top 50 applicants. If you apply to a school that gets 30 applications for 6 spots, and you're still in the top 10% of that group, suddenly you have a great chance to not only get in, but to get in with primo funding. This is why I am splitting my applications between schools at all levels, including strong-fit programs that are ranked quite low.

Edited December 7, 2012 by asleepawake

[waparys]

And I'm not saying it's bad to get an English PhD in order to teach high school. I'm just saying it's unusual, and you will be overqualified for that position. People who want to teach high school generally just get a Master's and a teaching credential, and are out on the job market much faster, with less debt.

Debt-free actually (and will stay that way after, hopefully, getting into a well-funded PhD program). Thanks for your concern, though.

[DontHate]

Graduate admissions is not a purely statistical game of chance. It's not like playing the lotto. If it were, then none of us would bother worrying about the quality of our essays and writing samples. If there are fewer applicants to comp lit programs, but each applicant is more qualified, then the likelihood of getting into a program could very well be just as low as it is applying to an English program where the only prerequisite is a love of reading. It's much harder to discourage unqualified applicants to English programs in an English-speaking country.

Everyone on this forum is cultishly devoted to this mystical notion of "fit." I have a few problems with this. The first is that it implies that an applicant already knows exactly what he or she wants to write a dissertation on, before even setting foot in grad school. If this is the case, you're doing it wrong. If you've already boxed yourself into such a narrow sliver of the discipline that only Podunk State Conservatory of Science has a scholar that could advise you, then you're committing career suicide, as well as approaching the most critical years of your intellectual formation with an extremely narrow mind.

Fit is never easy to determine before visiting the department and meeting all the faculty, and you only get that opportunity after you are invited to admit week. So the whole "fit" argument sounds a bit like a rationalization for avoiding rejection, more than a legitimate argument for not trying to get into the best programs available.

Don't hate me for having a different opinion from you. Ha. As if saying that will make a difference. Whatever. Just pile the hate on, if you must. Pretend that I am the admissions committee that rejected you. It seems to be helping y'all get some rage out at the unjust world, with it's sadly competitive nature and bleak career realities.

[DontHate]

Debt-free actually (and will stay that way after, hopefully, getting into a well-funded PhD program). Thanks for your concern, though.

I'm obviously not concerned. I'm sure you'll do fine. ALL I was saying is that a PhD is not intended as training for high school English teaching. That doesn't mean you can't use it that way. It's just not the traditional route.

[dazedandbemused]

Graduate admissions is not a purely statistical game of chance. It's not like playing the lotto. If it were, then none of us would bother worrying about the quality of our essays and writing samples. If there are fewer applicants to comp lit programs, but each applicant is more qualified, then the likelihood of getting into a program could very well be just as low as it is applying to an English program where the only prerequisite is a love of reading. It's much harder to discourage unqualified applicants to English programs in an English-speaking country.

Everyone on this forum is cultishly devoted to this mystical notion of "fit." I have a few problems with this. The first is that it implies that an applicant already knows exactly what he or she wants to write a dissertation on, before even setting foot in grad school. If this is the case, you're doing it wrong. If you've already boxed yourself into such a narrow sliver of the discipline that only Podunk State Conservatory of Science has a scholar that could advise you, then you're committing career suicide, as well as approaching the most critical years of your intellectual formation with an extremely narrow mind.

Fit is never easy to determine before visiting the department and meeting all the faculty, and you only get that opportunity after you are invited to admit week. So the whole "fit" argument sounds a bit like a rationalization for avoiding rejection, more than a legitimate argument for not trying to get into the best programs available.

Don't hate me for having a different opinion from you. Ha. As if saying that will make a difference. Whatever. Just pile the hate on, if you must. Pretend that I am the admissions committee that rejected you. It seems to be helping y'all get some rage out at the unjust world, with it's sadly competitive nature and bleak career realities.

I think the problem here is that you're completely misunderstanding the meaning of "fit". For English applicants, at least those who are entering with a bachelors and not an M.A., fit doesn't mean "I chose this school because random professor is doing research on the emotional resonance of Julian of Norwich and that's what I'm writing my dissertation on". More often it means that they see themselves, for example, as someone invested in cultural studies and therefore choose not to apply to more formalist departments, or they would rather study Literature thematically and therefore chose a school that doesn't focus heavily on individualized time periods. So yeah, for a lot of us that means that the top 20 isn't really something we're interested in.

Also, some of us, though it may be hard to believe, aren't in this to become the next super megastar. Being a professor at a SLAC is just as legitimate of a dream.

[DontHate]

Becoming a professor at a SLAC is incredibly competitive. They don't just hand those jobs out.

[dazedandbemused]

Becoming a professor at a SLAC is incredibly competitive. They don't just hand those jobs out.

I am aware of that. But I was responding to what sounded like a kinda elitist attitude about R1 institutions as the only place where PhDs can be happy.

[practical cat]

Also, some of us, though it may be hard to believe, aren't in this to become the next super megastar.

Ding ding ding. Especially when it so often requires giving up everything else. I mean, I want to be America's Next Top Academic but, like, I totally 100% get why someone wouldn't be chasing that too. Further, I would not be doing this if I didn't feel like I could handle not getting that dream because, hey, this arena is tough and very few people who try get it.

[wreckofthehope]

Becoming a professor at a SLAC is incredibly competitive. They don't just hand those jobs out.

Do you honestly think those of us on this board are not aware of that?

You make some good points...yes, you probably don't know exactly what direction your work will go in once you're in a program etc etc. All things considered, yes, you're more likely to be better off going to the higher ranked of your offers. But you're bulldozing over the nuances of each person's situation. Would I really be better off going to a school whose department culture and prevailing critical attitude is completely at odds with the way I work, just because it's ranked number 8 on the US News list rather going to a school ranked 35, where my approach would be supported and I would be happy doing the work I want to do?? Never mind the fact that I'm less likely to be accepted by the first school any way.

The attitude you have seems to be prevalent at the top schools; it feels a little bit like self justification and reassurance to me. There are lower ranked programs that place extremely well...if that threatens your sense of entitlement, there's not much we can do about that.

Choosing where to apply is a personal decision predicated on a whole raft of things, aside from ranking, that you clearly don't understand. I'm not denying that ranking and the general perceived prestige of your department is important - of course it is - and, yes, it has a large impact on your likelihood of getting a job, but there are many other factors that contribute to the kind of scholar you're going to be (and therefore to the kind of jobs you'll be competitive for) and it is important to consider all of them when you're choosing where to apply. There are even those of us who, god forbid, are bound to certain locations or types of location, those of us with families or other commitments that might affect where we apply.

Edited December 7, 2012 by wreckofthehope

[lisajay]

must... resist... urge to... feed... troll.........

[Two Espressos]

Ding ding ding. Especially when it so often requires giving up everything else. I mean, I want to be America's Next Top Academic but, like, I totally 100% get why someone wouldn't be chasing that too. Further, I would not be doing this if I didn't feel like I could handle not getting that dream because, hey, this arena is tough and very few people who try get it.

This made me laugh. And I feel the same way. Plus I want to be able to say that I did all that despite coming from humble--to put it mildly-- origins. It's an absurd dream, but fuck it, I'm going for it anyways.

[justkeepswimming]

Well, this thread blew up while I was out today.

Allow me to turn the tables: why are you applying to only Ivies and 3 other very top programs? I doubt these programs are all great fits for you, and fit is extremely important. If you opened yourself up to Top 40 programs, and applied only to schools where you had a very great fit, you would have more success than basically just ripping the list of Top 10 schools and applying to those. This is what undergrad applicants do.

Not that I'm defending caw_caw_caw's elitism, but the "This is what undergrad applicants do" comment is uncalled for. Caw_caw_caw is right in suggesting that there is absolutely no way that we as applicants truly know what "fit" constitutes for each program that specific year. If they like your work, they'll find a way to make you fit in. Fit is not tetris people. Departments are always changing and who knows if x department suddenly wanted someone who does y this year?

Also, I'm an undergraduate applicant and yes, I'm applying mostly to top ten schools. I don't think I should be disparaged for "ripping the list of Top 10 schools and applying to those." I have my reasons. I'm not a naive undergraduate applicant.

Lastly, I really wish you would stop your elitist act, caw_caw_caw, because I honestly don't see why you need to have such a smug attitude towards everyone else on this board. People have answered your "what are my chances?" thread graciously and you received the ego boost you needed to calm yourself down.

[DontHate]

I'm not really being an elitist. I'm just trying to stir up a conversation about what people plan to do with their PhD's, especially in the event that they may not have a realistic shot at an academic career. I base my opinions on the facts I've heard from people who supposedly know these things (including articles people have shared on this thread).

I got a bunch of responses that range from "you're mean for saying that," to "I just want to be a high school teacher anyway," to "well your field isn't even that competitive," to "even though I have very small chance of getting a tenure track job, I will persist in trying to get one." The argument that you're "not aiming to be an academic superstar" makes me feel sad. It's not as though any of us pursue our dreams with the hope of achieving a mediocre approximation of them. But, in any case, it's a complicated topic. I'm not bulldozing the nuance of anyone's situation as much as everyone is demonizing me. Shouldn't we all be able to look straight into the fearful truth of possible failure, without getting angry?