Exceptional Applications

[architecture 604]

Hi guys, 

Good luck to everyone hearing decisions, I know this is a big week coming up! This is a question I have been wondering for a while and just thought I would throw it out there. What do you guys think makes an exceptional application? I've heard from colleagues and friends and even commentors on this site about wonderful sounding applications being rejected (3.9 GPA, great GREs, tight and thoughtful writing sample, glowing recommendations). So what do you know this makes an application stand out? I know these qualities change based on the department, but I'm just curious what you guys think! 

[Hegel's Bagels]

 A 3.9 has skills, but is also obsessed with following the rules and playing it safe.  They probably come from a very coddling background with structured family support, parents and family members who are experienced with higher education and and a big pool in the suburbs.  

???

Then you know...there are the students with 4.0s that are also really creative, interesting, and not from privileged backgrounds.

Overall though I have to agree with ProspectStu's assessment that it's the applicant's ability to demonstrate a critical engagement with the field and potential to conduct interesting, innovative research. It really boils down to SOP and writing sample. A statement of purpose about how much you love art and a writing sample about Artemisia Gentileschi is not going to cut it (no matter how well it was written). Fit is also extremely important.

[Seeking]

Personally, I rate a school highly only if the highest grades are given there to the most critically innovative students - regardless of whether the various ranking lists place this school in the top 5 or in the last 30.

 

I know that not everyone thinks like me. But I feel that in an ideal situation, a good school should also rate its most innovative and critical-thinking scholars on top.

 

That said, in an admissions process, apart from the writing sample, SOP and the LORs, the prestige of the previous school also counts - as also the names of the recommenders.

 

Besides, it's a relative comparison process, so what also matters is how one's application compares with other applications and where one stands in the applications pool.

[auvers-sur-oise]

A 3.9 has skills, but is also obsessed with following the rules and playing it safe.  They probably come from a very coddling background, parents and family members who are experienced with higher education and and a big pool in the suburbs.  

 

This is total garbage and reads like sour grapes about your own undergraduate transcript. It's also presumptuous and offensive, but God knows you didn't hurt my feelings, so I won't belabor that particular point.

 

An undergraduate GPA above a 3.5, particularly within the major, shouldn't be to difficult for any prospective graduate student. While there are obviously exceptions, it's a good baseline, and graduate programs agree - that's why programs recommend or require applicants to meet certain cutoffs. I think that once you cross that threshold, the difference between a 3.7 and a 3.9 is negligible, but to suggest that a higher GPA necessarily means a duller candidate is petty and inaccurate.

 

Reputable graduate programs also require their students to maintain a high average, and while coasting through undergrad Art History coursework on a string of B's before making the jump to A-quality graduate work is not impossible, adcomms tend to place their bets on students who already have a proven track record of academic success. They want innovative, evocative research, but they also want their students to finish.

 

While I agree that "Being an interesting scholar with challenging ideas is much, much harder to fake," I am certain that the top programs have no shortage of candidates with perfect or near-perfect GPAs, and who bring insightful and challenging ideas.

 

A lot of big talk about statistics and a "normalized sampling of students" for a Monday morning, ProspectStu8735 - let's see those stats.

Edited February 4, 2013 by auvers-sur-oise

[HannahPie]

My guess is that the type of individual who gets a 3.9 is probably academically talented but unimaginative.  Numbers are used as indicators that admissions committees try to correlate with other factors, the most important of which is potential to produce interesting, original research.  A 3.9 has skills, but is also obsessed with following the rules and playing it safe.  

 

I think the problem with this generalization is that while there are certainly students who fit this description, you're making a lot of assumptions about the professors who grade these students as well. Speaking to my own undergrad experience, I didn't get A's UNTIL I started producing academically imaginative, engaging, and interesting work. There were obviously a few professors who wanted me to spit back what they told me, but the majority wanted me to produce original research with fresh insights. So to say that just about everyone who does very well in undergrad is boring and stuffy is to insinuate that that is what professors are requiring them to be. And don't forget that these professors are often the ones teaching the grad classes too.

[auvers-sur-oise]

A 3.9-er is used to being perfect, so they don't take risks, which is to say, they have a very low likelihood of ever producing academic work that is challenging and evocative, though it could be perfectly adequate... Any idiot can get a high GPA with enough practice and concentration. 

 

 

Don't worry ProsStu - you didn't offend me. While I disagree with two of your three "controversy" points, I think they're fair. They're just inconsistent with your relentlessly positive outlook, as quoted above.

 

Re: the original topic, I think that once adcomms have sorted out the best students, fit and departmental need are the strongest factors. 

Edited February 4, 2013 by auvers-sur-oise

[fullofpink]

Hi guys, 

Good luck to everyone hearing decisions, I know this is a big week coming up! This is a question I have been wondering for a while and just thought I would throw it out there. What do you guys think makes an exceptional application? I've heard from colleagues and friends and even commentors on this site about wonderful sounding applications being rejected (3.9 GPA, great GREs, tight and thoughtful writing sample, glowing recommendations). So what do you know this makes an application stand out? I know these qualities change based on the department, but I'm just curious what you guys think! 

 

Numbers are definitely not everything, as seen by the comments above. I think what really helps an application is experience (research, internships, publications, presentations, relevant work experience), grant and scholarships received, and how closely their interests match with their intended POI or the department objectives. 

 

Even then, a LOT is on the department itself. Some POIs have too many students, or they are no longer interested in gathering students who want to study their interests. Some POIs might be going on sabbatical or retiring in the near future, and so forth. It's all very much up in the air. 

[JosephineB]

To answer the OP's original question ---

 

I believe that a fantastic writing sample (or two) can make up for deficiencies in an application. When it comes down to it, academics are expected to produce high quality, well researched, and well written work - grades are important, but superior writing and research skills will carry you farther than a perfect gpa. Applicant A had a 3.9 and a good writing sample, whereas Applicant B has a 3.6 and an outstanding writing sample. In my opinion applicant B has the better application. Once you reach a certain level, the ability to write exceptionally cannot really be taught. 

 

I do however agree with earlier posters who talk about 3.5 being some kind of imaginary, but real, threshold in graduate admissions. If you have considerably below a 3.5 (especially sub 3.0), it is objectively harder to stay competitive with 3.7+ applicants. It may not be fair or make sense, but it happens nonetheless. 

[HalFoster]

Funny how I always seem to agree with the person being down voted on these things, why is that? I agree with Prospectus and throughly enjoy her comments. To everyone else, most art history professors actually see problems with the field and want students who are going to change it. They want students who not only write and research well, but they want people who are going to critically question everything from the political economy to the injustices of the visual art industrial complex. Question these professors, the programs, the white person dominated art world, neoliberalism, race, class, gender, and language inequalities. Question how art history is recorded and written.

 

Why is there such a disproportionate number of white people applying to art history PhD programs in the US, Canada, and Europe? Does that have to with the fact the visual arts has historically been for whites? We are art historians, I bet someone can tell us why there are more women in art schools today and less female celebrity art star artists in the art world. Why is social practice full of a bunch of self-hating white bourgeois missionaries carrying out do-gooder projects in order to gain currency in the art world? Why do Hal Foster and Rosiland Krauss practice International Art English so much? Don't they know that it perpetuates the racial division and minority cliques within the visual arts? Who came up with the idea of art fairs and biennials and who really cares for them outside of being seen looking at art with... fill in the blank big shot?

 

You are going to get accepted if you question your world, the art world, and the institutions that influence the visual arts. You have to speak truth to power and question the present. .

[Phdoobiedoobiedoo]

I disagree with the assumption that all programs want critical thinkers. There may be programs that encourage intellectual dissent but there are also many that enthusiastically embrace the status quo and churn out mini-me's. This isn't a numbers game. The professors are people with likes, foibles, particular points of view and interests just like everyone else. These things influence their decisions. I also disagree with the assumption that people with money and good grades are utterly lacking in imagination, I don't think affluence and creativity are mutually exclusive. I don't think that economic challenges breed superior creativity either. People are individuals. While there are any number of reasons to speculate about why student x was admitted, but not student y, sometimes it just comes down to whether or not the professor liked you when you met (if you did meet), or the professor preferred what you wrote in your SOP and the tone you used as opposed to another prospective student. Obviously people who apply to grad school are generally qualified to do the work, so it boils down to whether or not the professor(s) want to work with you. I wouldn't discount personal interactions. I am in a PhD program, where certain professors absolutely want their students to spit back exactly what the professor teaches them and departure from that is not encouraged. I think most, but not all, professors would love to have a student who is innovative and original. But these are academics. They have their insecurities just like everyone else, oftentimes more so. Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it isn't there. The last thing they want is a student who is smarter or more innovative than they are.Make no mistake, while the majority of admitted students are outstanding on one level or another, the fact is that departments get money from the university based on how many asses they put in the seats. That's how it works where I am, and I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility that that is how it works elsewhere. So while it is agonizing to try to figure out if what you wrote in your SOP, or what paper you submitted was on par with Dickens, sometimes it's just a crap shoot and your magnificence or shortcomings have absolutely nothing to do with it. Which is why you have to try to not take it personally if you aren't accepted. Even though that's not easy to do.

[m-ttl]

Funny how I always seem to agree with the person being down voted on these things, why is that? I agree with Prospectus and throughly enjoy her comments. To everyone else, most art history professors actually see problems with the field and want students who are going to change it. They want students who not only write and research well, but they want people who are going to critically question everything from the political economy to the injustices of the visual art industrial complex. Question these professors, the programs, the white person dominated art world, neoliberalism, race, class, gender, and language inequalities. Question how art history is recorded and written.

 

Why is there such a disproportionate number of white people applying to art history PhD programs in the US, Canada, and Europe? Does that have to with the fact the visual arts has historically been for whites? We are art historians, I bet someone can tell us why there are more women in art schools today and less female celebrity art star artists in the art world. Why is social practice full of a bunch of self-hating white bourgeois missionaries carrying out do-gooder projects in order to gain currency in the art world? Why do Hal Foster and Rosiland Krauss practice International Art English so much? Don't they know that it perpetuates the racial division and minority cliques within the visual arts? Who came up with the idea of art fairs and biennials and who really cares for them outside of being seen looking at art with... fill in the blank big shot?

 

You are going to get accepted if you question your world, the art world, and the institutions that influence the visual arts. You have to speak truth to power and question the present.

 

I agree. If you want to be an exceptional applicant, you have to think exceptionally and critically, especially about the way the field has been shaped, formed, and reflected. Some of us who are not white, nor wealthy already have to examine these factors at play just by the very nature of not being a part of the long-standing dominant groups in the field. 

 

If you're looking to join the field and seem outstanding, I absolutely recommend that you come in with new and fresh ideas to approach the broadening horizons of audiences, academics, research, etc. The amount of potential diversity of thoughts and experiences/backgrounds are changing, and it's always important to show that you will not remain unwilling to learn new things.

 

 

 

I disagree with the assumption that all programs want critical thinkers. There may be programs that encourage intellectual dissent but there are also many that enthusiastically embrace the status quo and churn out mini-me's. This isn't a numbers game. The professors are people with likes, foibles, particular points of view and interests just like everyone else. These things influence their decisions. I also disagree with the assumption that people with money and good grades are utterly lacking in imagination, I don't think affluence and creativity are mutually exclusive. I don't think that economic challenges breed superior creativity either.

 

Perhaps some professors don't encourage intellectualism (a shame, as I would argue exploring new ideas, or old ideas in new ways is an invaluable skill) but in general, I would say that's not the way to stand out as an exceptional applicant? YMMV, I suppose.

 

I won't say that affluent people are less creative, but I will say necessity is the mother of invention. Economic challenge often forces you to come up with a variety of ways to keep up with peers who have that extra boost that you do not have. This may not seem like much, but obviously it's a factor enough that finances are taken into consideration in "diversity/overcoming adversity" statements, and need based scholarship? Lack of affluence doesn't make you smarter or more creative. It just means that sometimes you have to work more to keep up with the base standard of the field/pool of applicants. 

Edited February 5, 2013 by m-ttl

[JosephineB]

I am in a PhD program, where certain professors absolutely want their students to spit back exactly what the professor teaches them and departure from that is not encouraged. 

 

This has to be true to some extent at most if not all grad programs. Yes, there are professors who encourage you to take risks, ask questions - be unconventional - but there are also professors who will not entertain divergent points of view. Unlike in undergrad, where professors will nod politely and feign appreciation, I have seen profs cut students down in seminar for arguing against their views. It's easy to write these profs off as out of touch hot heads, but sometimes you have to play the game - these are the people who decide on departmental fellowships, and who can write you letters of recommendation to their famous colleagues.  

 

In academia there is definitely a hierarchy, and the attitude that everyone must put in their time and suffer though absurdity (without complaint) before they have full autonomy and intellectual freedom. It is important not to step on toes too soon. No one should do anything, or produce work that they find truly abhorrent, but there is definite strategic value in just shutting up and doing what you are told for the first couple of semesters. Show them that you are dependable, and that you can produce high quality work.

[Hegel's Bagels]

Why is there such a disproportionate number of white people applying to art history PhD programs in the US, Canada, and Europe? Does that have to with the fact the visual arts has historically been for whites? We are art historians, I bet someone can tell us why there are more women in art schools today and less female celebrity art star artists in the art world.

THIS a million times. And also why are there are so many female art history students and such a higher proportion of male faculty at top ranking institutions.

[Seeking]

I disagree with the assumption that all programs want critical thinkers. There may be programs that encourage intellectual dissent but there are also many that enthusiastically embrace the status quo and churn out mini-me's. This isn't a numbers game. The professors are people with likes, foibles, particular points of view and interests just like everyone else. These things influence their decisions. I also disagree with the assumption that people with money and good grades are utterly lacking in imagination, I don't think affluence and creativity are mutually exclusive. I don't think that economic challenges breed superior creativity either. People are individuals. While there are any number of reasons to speculate about why student x was admitted, but not student y, sometimes it just comes down to whether or not the professor liked you when you met (if you did meet), or the professor preferred what you wrote in your SOP and the tone you used as opposed to another prospective student. Obviously people who apply to grad school are generally qualified to do the work, so it boils down to whether or not the professor(s) want to work with you. I wouldn't discount personal interactions. I am in a PhD program, where certain professors absolutely want their students to spit back exactly what the professor teaches them and departure from that is not encouraged. I think most, but not all, professors would love to have a student who is innovative and original. But these are academics. They have their insecurities just like everyone else, oftentimes more so. Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it isn't there. The last thing they want is a student who is smarter or more innovative than they are.Make no mistake, while the majority of admitted students are outstanding on one level or another, the fact is that departments get money from the university based on how many asses they put in the seats. That's how it works where I am, and I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility that that is how it works elsewhere. So while it is agonizing to try to figure out if what you wrote in your SOP, or what paper you submitted was on par with Dickens, sometimes it's just a crap shoot and your magnificence or shortcomings have absolutely nothing to do with it. Which is why you have to try to not take it personally if you aren't accepted. Even though that's not easy to do.

 

 

 

Josephinebeuys - 

This has to be true to some extent at most if not all grad programs. Yes, there are professors who encourage you to take risks, ask questions - be unconventional - but there are also professors who will not entertain divergent points of view. Unlike in undergrad, where professors will nod politely and feign appreciation, I have seen profs cut students down in seminar for arguing against their views. It's easy to write these profs off as out of touch hot heads, but sometimes you have to play the game - these are the people who decide on departmental fellowships, and who can write you letters of recommendation to their famous colleagues.  

 

 

This is actually true in many cases - including at top schools and in most Humanities and Social Sciences Programs.

 

What I have seen is that they want you to be innovative and a critical thinker when you are entering Graduate School and during the first few years. But as you are nearing the end of your PhD and go into the job market, you are expected to fall in line with the predominant thought systems more often than not.

 

Exceptionally brilliant, innovative and critical candidates who question the system too much are not wanted in the academic job market - unless they happen to have been fortunate to have made the right contacts during their PhD program. If they want to change the system, they should have an influential mentor who follows a similar idea - but the mentor will support such a candidate as long as the candidate doesn't deviate from the mentor's route.

 

So, if an application gives the impression that this candidate is going to ask too many uncomfortable questions in future that the influential academics may not agree with, such an application is not likely to be successful. But if an application gives the impression that this candidate is going to add some more innovation to the POI's thought system without ever questioning the POI, the applicant is likely to be successful because of an innovative and critical writing sample.

 

 

You can't afford to question your mentor's approach if you don't agree with it at some stage. Innovation and critical thinking end where your mentor's territory begins in the academia.

Edited February 6, 2013 by Seeking

[HalFoster]

What I have seen is that they want you to be innovative and a critical thinker when you are entering Graduate School and during the first few years. But as you are nearing the end of your PhD and go into the job market, you are expected to fall in line with the predominant thought systems more often than not.

 

None of these art professors fell in line or toe the line today: Most are honored for being at the top of their field. See where a little dissent gets you.

 

Just to name a few of our admirers:

Claire Bishop

Matthew Jesse Jackson

James Elkins

W.J.T Mitchell

Alexander Nemerov

David Joselit

Julia Bryan-Wilson

Julian Stallabrass

Keith Moxy

David Levi Strauss

Nicholas Mirzoeff

 

I could go on! Even though they perpetuate the common principles, I would add Rosiland Krauss, Hal Foster, Yves Alain-Bois, Benjamin Buchloh, and other mainstreamers to this list as well. You have to fight for your ideas, not because you want a cushy professor gig or book deals, but because your ideas mean something to you!

[ArtilleryClinton]

At the end of the day, I think it's all about timing. I know people who applied to 7 programs, were rejected one year, reapplied the next doing nothing of real consequence in that year, and then were accepted by all 7 programs. You just can't take rejections personally.

[Seeking]

Hal, they all are following the dominant discourses in their own sub-specializations - i.e., they all were always in line.

 

They picked up a sub-specialization when it was on the rise and followed it up in the direction it was moving.

 

They didn't really challenge the dominant discourses in their sub-specialization.

 

And as I said, they all had influential mentors to promote them. You can't rise in the academia without an influential mentor and it's the mentor who decides what line you'll take. 

 

I am not suggesting that this is the way it should be - I am against this culture of the mentor promoting only a certain kind of candidates. I am only saying that this is how things are.

 

 

 

At the end of the day, I think it's all about timing. I know people who applied to 7 programs, were rejected one year, reapplied the next doing nothing of real consequence in that year, and then were accepted by all 7 programs. You just can't take rejections personally.

 

This is also a reality. Thanks for this!

[HalFoster]

Seeking-

I just disagree and I will clarify my earlier point. There is room in the field of art history to stay in line with dominant discourse while also questioning the field and the art world proper. I am not suggesting that you need to argue with everyone and make enemies (I think that would be a problem). The art historians I mention do operate in the field, but made names for themselves by appropriately questioning dominant ideologies and trends. They put forth innovative research because they saw problems.

 

Case in point: Claire Bishop was highly criticized for slamming relational aesthetics and de-skilling. Now that she has basically dismantled and rendered irrelevant the term "Relational Aesthetics" we see her popularity rising (2006-2013). Her lambasting of Relational Aesthetics is what earned her the position of editing the book PARTICIPATION. I don't think Artificial Hells could have been written or funded without her earlier criticality and polemical approach (she's not a phony or an opportunist either, that's important as it goes to integrity).

 

My message is this: You do not get anywhere by thinking safely and sheepishly nodding along with your department chair. You shouldn't be adversarial just to be adversarial either, but you must have convictions, views, questions, and examine all perspectives (that is the academic tradition, it's not our fault academia has been co-opted by corporatism and neo-liberalism). These programs and professors are not your bosses. You earn your spot and you are a student--students should be allowed to question the teacher and disagree. Good teachers allow this and love this. If a professor is aggressive with you verbally or otherwise, you need to report that, students do have rights especially at the doctoral level. Don't allow yourselves to be abused.

[ProspectStu8735]

The art historians I mention do operate in the field, but made names for themselves by appropriately questioning dominant ideologies and trends. They put forth innovative research because they saw problems.

 

THIS is what PhD programs are looking for in potential admits.  Innovative research.

[anonymousbequest]

Hal, they all are following the dominant discourses in their own sub-specializations - i.e., they all were always in line.

 

They picked up a sub-specialization when it was on the rise and followed it up in the direction it was moving.

 

They didn't really challenge the dominant discourses in their sub-specialization.

 

And as I said, they all had influential mentors to promote them. You can't rise in the academia without an influential mentor and it's the mentor who decides what line you'll take. 

 

This!  Let's take Alex Nemerov, a scholar who bounces between Yale and Stanford, for an example. He's working within his mentor Jules Prown's approach, but has gone further into Freudian speculation than Prown did while amping up the close reading of objects into a kind of historical art criticism. His work is creative, engaging and thoughtful, but the approch is by no means unique- many of the second and third generation Prown students produce similar work.  And many are highly successful.  Structurally, Nemerov had the advantage of the highly influential Prown, and of debuting his method in a spectacularly public fashion- the catalogue for the highly controversial West as America exhibition at SAAM.  This is not a unique situation, I think we could trace a number of lineages in the same way.

 

It's nice to think that "pushing boundaries" however one defines them will be enough to get you in and then get you a career, but a charismatic/influential mentor is waaaay up on the list too.  Isn't that why everyone applies to the same 15 schools?  When you are deciding on where you will go, choosing an advisor who will steer your career is almost as important as whether they will "foster" (ha ha) your development as a scholar. Look for those who are on editorial boards, fellowship committees, CAA board, etc...  Those relationships will come in handy.  If the professor seems isolated, no matter how brilliant, think twice. I would argue that this can work in the opposite way as well, a professor may want to work with a student who seems personable and even keeled as well as brilliant, inviting them into the program instead of the brilliant but weird kid.  From the prof's point of view the more charismatic applicant may prove more successful navigating school and career (carrying on the professor's legacy).

[oh_la_la]

I think anonymous bequest has it right: your grad school mentor can easily make your career.  But I would also caution that some of the big names at very highly ranked programs do little for their grad students.   That is why it is SO IMPORTANT to ask other students in the program frank questions when you go to visit.  Make sure to find out if Professor X is an active and critical reader of students' written work and gives good feedback (assuming you want a hands on advisor: you probably do if you want your dissertation to be any good).  Also find out how Professor X's students have done on the job market and if they maintain close ties to their mentor after they leave the program.

[Phdoobiedoobiedoo]

My university recently interviewed for a new faculty member, with whom the students met apart from other faculty. One of these applicants had worked with, and listed as references, the top four names in their field. The applicant went on to state that these individuals had done absolutely nothing for them while they were a student, and that because of this she was invested in being very hands-on with her own future students because when she was a student of these specialists she had little to no clue what was going on. I prefer the younger (and by younger I mean less than say 50) scholars who haven't achieved a level of success and/or notoriety that somehow translates into less investment in students.

 

As far as those willing to put themselves out there, from the old guard, you forgot Leo Steinberg. He got a lot of grief for The Sexuality of Christ. And I'm confused Hal, because based on your previous comments you sound very conscious of race and ethnic absences in Art History scholars and the field in general, but I don't see any non-white scholars on that list of dissenters. My area isn't contemporary art, but I can easily think of many American scholars of color who are challenging the canon, as well as challenging other established academics in the field, in a concerted effort to change the way we look at art history. Please be aware, I am not attacking you, I am just not familiar enough with your area, as opposed to earlier centuries, to comment other than to say it seems weird.

[JosephineB]

Hal --

 

You do realize that not everyone studies contemporary art? In my (pre-modern) sub-field it is first and foremost important to have a command of the primary sources and the historiography. This takes decades to achieve. It's not really appropriate for a new grad student fresh out of undergrad or some irrelevant masters program to throw down some Onians or Lacan and try to cobble together an argument. This is not innovative or appropriate for the field, and it will not get you recognized in a positive way. In fields that are founded on careful interpretation of historical details and encyclopedic knowledge of classical languages and iconography you first become a student of tradition. it is only once you have mastered the canon and traditional approaches/methodologies that you are positioned to question them in a way that is meaningful and responsible. I can't imagine you have spent much time in graduate level academia or in sub-fields outside of your own.  

[HalFoster]

Dear All,

Yes, I do realize that there are other areas of study in art history and that people can and do choose to study these different subjects.

 

I have a tendency to (appropriately) access my own experiences, knowledge, etc. when writing here. This may not be the approach of others, but it is mine. My little listing was by no means meant to be comprehensive or to reflect the absence of people of color. It was off the cuff to support my point that one can shake things up a bit, remain field relevant, and have a job/career of their dreams.

 

My message if it had to be summed would be: Do not be afraid to question authority (politely and respectively of course). These programs and professors can teach you a lot, but do not fear them and obey their every command just because they know more than you and have distinguished credentials. 

 

Josephine-Please do not question my experiences at the graduate level. I understand what you are saying and I agree with it. I do not feel that my comments run entirely counter to what you are suggesting above. When did I ever say ignore the cannon, ignore historical details, ignore your professors, ignore traditional thinkers and the foundations of your content area? I do not recall saying all of that.

 

I was rejected by Northwestern yesterday, so what do I know. If my comments seem as though I have something figured out, it's not true, but I know right from wrong and I do not get scared when professors glare at me over their eyeglasses. I just want you all to be fearless, speak truth to power, and avoid fetishizing these elite programs/professors.

 

Best,

[ekphrasis]

Josephine-Please do not question my experiences at the graduate level. I understand what you are saying and I agree with it. I do not feel that my comments run entirely counter to what you are suggesting above. When did I ever say ignore the cannon, ignore historical details, ignore your professors, ignore traditional thinkers and the foundations of your content area? I do not recall saying all of that.

 

I was rejected by Northwestern yesterday, so what do I know. If my comments seem as though I have something figured out, it's not true, but I know right from wrong and I do not get scared when professors glare at me over their eyeglasses. I just want you all to be fearless, speak truth to power, and avoid fetishizing these elite programs/professors.

 

It is, of course, a very dangerous and life-threatening thing to ignore the cannon.