unfocused?

[hadunc]

Perhaps this topic has been explored already, but I would like to know, is there anyone out there like me who feels it's a bit unfair to ask rising grad students to have a focus of study picked out already at the point at which they are doing their applications? I know a lot of people in this forum already have a masters degree, and I consider that a different situation since obviously their interests have been honed quite a bit. But coming directly out of an undergrad program, it just seems unfair that you kind of already have to know the direction you want your career to go in. Although I have narrowed down my focus quite a bit, even since submitting my applications, I still feel like it could very well change in the next few years. It just seems unfair that we have to choose so soon. Maybe it is a sign that I am too intellectually immature to pursue grad school right now (and I may very well end up taking a year off), but I really can't imagine that very many college seniors already know exactly what they want to pursue for the rest of their academic careers. I mean, it seems like a big decision and I just wish I didn't have to pick right now.

Anyone else feeling this way, or am I just way too unfocused in my studies?

[marvel]

I'm in the same boat-- I've been accepted into two PhD programs and am coming directly from my undergraduate degree. From what I understand, there is a certain expectation that you may change your focus. In fact, I would be suspicious of any graduate program that didn't change your interests-- isn't that a sign of a stimulating department? Luckily for me, both programs I am considering have two years of coursework before I have to begin my dissertation, so hopefully I'll be more decided by then. Are you looking at programs that demand a commitment right away?

Perhaps this is also an argument for picking a school with a stronger faculty in general, rather than for one particularly good potential supervisor.

[Yellow#5]

I felt my SoP was unfocused because I mentioned too many interests. Do those of you who got accepted think it's better to simply state one interests and not try and discuss supporting interests?

[hadunc]

marvel,

None of my schools specifically demanded that I commit to a certain focus and not change it, but it seems that there is a certain expectation in academia that you know what you want to do when you enter the PhD program. For instance, a couple of my schools required that I designate which sub-field I was applying to on the app, and were so specific that I had a hard time deciding which box to check off. Upon further discussion with one of my recommendation writers, I think a big part of the problem with my app (rejected at 6, wait listed at 1) was that I specifically stated in my SOP that I had multiple interests and wasn't set on one yet. Compared to a lot of people on this site, I can see why schools would have chosen more focused candidates over me. If I don't get in to grad school off of the wait list, I will definitely be taking time this year to hone my interests. Still, it seems like a crappy system, doesn't it? Glad to know someone else feels this way too and that there is at least some flexibility with changing your focus once you get in. But it seems like it's a bit backwards, and that's what frustrates me.

[YagglesSnaggles]

Someone suggested that SOP's should actually be a preliminary dissertation topic proposals, predicting which primary, secondary, and even tertiary texts that one plans to use. I didn't do this, but I have not been accepted yet, and that someone has. I actually read theirs and I felt puke in my mouth. I tried to emulate that template and my thesis chair laughed at me, but who knows. Things change.

[Sibilance7]

I took five years off between my BA and my MA, and in that five years, I read a lot and zeroed in on my focus area. I only applied once I had determined that I had something important to say about my area. If you just like to read and don't have a clear concept of what research area you'd like to focus on, I highly recommend taking some time off. Grad school is for pursuing research and writing in a specific area; it's not for people who just love books and reading in general.

[booksareneat]

The advice I received from one of my recommenders was that this is a professional degree (PhD) and that you need to have a clear focus on what you need to do. Going into my MA I had a good idea of the branch of literature I wanted to focus upon, but within a few months everything came into focus--I started to see the theories I wanted to work with and get a good idea of where I wanted to apply those theories.

Then again, I felt (and was told) my SOP was spot on and I seem to be striking out with schools (*shakes fist at academic gods*), so maybe I just slept with the wrong people.

[draff]

I'm of two minds about this, but what about this as a thought: the kind of focus that you want to be able to demonstrate in your application comes through in some combination of Statement of Purpose/etc. (this is not really a binding legal document--you can say that you want to focus exclusively on texts that were peripheral to the Eikon Basilike, but that doesn't obligate you to any such thing once you're actually admitted) and your Writing Sample. And while it's much easier to point to your statement or research plans as having equal weight to your writing sample, it's honestly far less significant to Who You Are As A Scholar than your writing sample. So the only focus you really need to be accountable to happens there; and frankly, if you're an incredibly serious student as an undergraduate, I think that you can demonstrate every bit as much focus in that document as a graduate student. The question, though, is what that focus looks like, and how to show it. And I think that, for most people who are committed to doing scholarship in the humanities, you probably need a year or two of graduate school (or at least exposure to what graduate level work looks and feels like) before you can really be embedded enough in a conversation about literature or/as culture to figure that part--that is, what a focused piece of scholarship does--out. I mean, while it's great to have one's mentors suggest that something is terrific, is a perfect writing sample, etc., but that's basically like having your father tell you that there's no way you won't make the team: the decision isn't up to them. So unless you're participating in symposia, conferences, etc., or actively seeking publication from journals that are known to give useful feedback, it will be hard to know whether your scholarly performance has a 'focus' that is acute enough to be doing PhD-level study.

To put it another way, I'm not sure that it's fair, really, that competitive programs ask that you already have a pretty specific focus when you enter, but when you consider the number of people going into this field, the dwindling number of exits available to humanities PhDs across all fields, and the fact that there are quite a few Master's programs that fund (and appropriately), I don't know how else a school would be able to predict that their applicants would thrive, other than by their demonstration of a tremendous amount of focus. I know that some programs, in fact, ask that their applicants propose a reading list for their studies with their application.

Tangentially:::::It's a tough time to be trying to do humanities scholarship...we're lucky, as English Lit. students--difficult as this process is--that universities have been so amenable to the integration of composition courses into their general education curricula. Otherwise, there would be fewer spots for graduate students, far less funding, and even fewer paths to follow after earning the PhD.

[lotf629]

I gotta agree with draff. I think that other types of teaching offer the inveterate reader a little bit more freedom than does a professorship. For the past five years between undergrad and PhD, I've been working as a tutor for AP Lit, SAT, and classroom English subjects (an equal mix of actual teaching and college prep circus tricks). I've had a ton of time to read very widely, and the money's been excellent (relatively speaking; I mean, relative to other humanities-type endeavors like graduate studentry). A lot of other people at the program are poets, artists, or other people with passions that don't tend to support themselves. There are kinds of teaching like this, that don't require a Ph.D. and do allow for breadth of reading. There are also careers in publishing, which have their own ups and downs but allow for a life spent reading in a different way. As other posters have pointed out, however, the Ph.D. is fundamentally an advanced degree in a research discipline.

Many of the most active and sophisticated readers I know are not academics but people who have chosen a lifestyle that accommodates reading. I have an old friend who is a poet (his third book is soon to come out). He has a nine-to-five job that's very uninspiring (glorified filing, if I remember correctly). But he chooses work like this because it allows him imaginative freedom and leaves his evenings free. As a result, he's able to do the reading and writing necessary to serve his real vocation, which is writing poems. I think it's safe to say that if he had gone on to English lit grad coursework (which he no doubt would have been qualified for), he might not have had the time or freedom necessary to do his own essentially, maybe quintessentially, self-directed reading.

I do think it's worth remembering, again as others have said, that nobody treats your SOP as a contract. People change their minds; it's expected. I think perhaps what's more important is that you demonstrate that you're capable of identifying a research focus and following through on it to at least a certain extent, and that you're committed to English literature as a research field and not as an avocation or a way of life.

[hadunc]

Thank you all for the replies! I'd like to clarify that I really do want to do the PhD work--I am not just an "inveterate reader"--it is analysis and interpretation that I am interested in, not just the act of reading itself. It is not that I think I'm not capable of carrying on graduate research, in fact I am already tossing around some ideas in my head about what to write my dissertation on, I was simply pointing out the fact that I think most undergrads are not prepared to make this choice. I mean, yeah, I'm interested in gender theory now, but will I be as interested in it in 5 years? I don't know. I did not want to put off graduate study because this is the career path that I want to take, there is literally nothing else I could see myself doing with my life. But I think (like someone above said) that it is hard for some students to gauge exactly what they want to do until they are actually doing the grad level work, and of course you need to be accepted to grad school first! If it doesn't happen for me this year, then I will see it as an opportunity to figure out exactly what I do want to study. But as for waiting 5 years until i have something specific to contribute, I greatly admire Sibilance7 for her/his motivation and drive, but I couldn't imagine putting this off just because I don't have a crystal clear idea of what I want to study. And I'm shocked by YagglesSnaggles' post, I think that's just ridiculous, how could someone applying straight out of an undergrad degree possibly be prepared to write their dissertation?! I'm sorry, but there is just not enough time in a day for an undergrad to outline their dissertation in any meaningful way, and I would call bs on anyone who claims they knew exactly what they were going to write it on straight out of college. Unless they were truly were a prodigy of some sort.

That said, I guess maybe pretending to be confident in what I want to study until I actually get to that point might be the best way to go. Hey, it works in dating, why shouldn't it work here?

[lyonessrampant]

Things DO change. One of my profs at UChicao went from Romanticism to medieval lit. I think it has less to do about your passion in lit (time period) than your methodology, so if you get an admit from an awesome school, they might HOPE you stay in the time period/discipline you indicate, but I think most know you might change. Good luck!

[jasper.milvain]

That said, I guess maybe pretending to be confident in what I want to study until I actually get to that point might be the best way to go. Hey, it works in dating, why shouldn't it work here?

This might actually work. I had to outline my imaginary dissertation for a grant application last fall. I'm about to complete an MA, and was at a total freakin loss. It was like being asked to name imaginary unicorns in my magical fairyland stables. I told my supervisor I didn't know what a dissertation looks like, and she said "Roughly, they look like books." It might help to grab a few (recent, relevant) monographs and look at how they're structured. How many authors overall? A focus on a period, a theme, a movement? How specific is the focus? It really helped me think about my project in a more detailed way, and the grant app has been successful so far (knock wood).

You sound like you want the challenge, but to be honest my knee-jerk reaction to people who say "Oh, I haven't chosen a field yet. I just have so many interests!" is to assume that they lack rigor and haven't put the work into defining a project yet. That's probably a fairly common reaction that you're working against. Maybe if you think about it in terms of proving that you're capable of coming up with a complex project (and that you know how the system works, by extension) instead of committing yourself to a life path, you'll be able to bring your SoP into focus.

[spartaca]

You also want to avoid too focused. Many programs don't like it when you sound like you have your whole graduate career mapped out already (ie - "this will be the title of my dissertation"). Yes, they want you to tell them what you plan on studying and what your interests are, but they understand that it's early and you will probably change your mind or your interests will shift. Something like "The tension that arises between X and Y in genre Z is fascinating to me, etc etc" is a formula that seems to work. I actually included a series of questions in my SOP that I'm interested in exploring. Basically, they just want to see that you've been thinking about things, that you have interests, and that you're serious about doing the work. I think it's important to make this section of the SOP future-oriented as well, especially if you've talked about past achievements or academic experiences earlier in the piece.

All in all - no one expects you to stick to what you say in your application, but be decisive and confident with whatever thread you go with.

Things DO change. One of my profs at UChicao went from Romanticism to medieval lit.

I had a prof who did her dissertation on British Modernist Poetry and now does 19th C. American... So even after the PhD, there's room for change!

[LOLhedgefunds]

Someone suggested that SOP's should actually be a preliminary dissertation topic proposals, predicting which primary, secondary, and even tertiary texts that one plans to use. I didn't do this, but I have not been accepted yet, and that someone has. I actually read theirs and I felt puke in my mouth. I tried to emulate that template and my thesis chair laughed at me, but who knows. Things change.

This kind of thing makes me 'vom in my mouth a little bit' as well. If you are applying to grad school and you 'already know' the 'tertiary texts' for your dissertation (indeed, if you even believe that this is a hard-and-fast category), you are not intellectually curious, and you are why grad school is filled with extremely uninteresting people who participate in the reproduction of an intellectually eviscerated, irrelevant academy.

[LOLhedgefunds]

Again - wouldn't one *hope* for this? My most interesting (and, it should be noted, most well-respected) professor did his dissertation on 19th c. German lit (I think), then worked on Weimar film, then wrote on post-Wall German aesthetics (incl. contemporary art). He now curates exhibits at his universities' art museum. The idea of staying put in your little corner is depressing, and if you're good, you should be able to move around (not necessary from period to period or genre to genre but this is a possibility).

Things DO change. One of my profs at UChicao went from Romanticism to medieval lit.

I had a prof who did her dissertation on British Modernist Poetry and now does 19th C. American... So even after the PhD, there's room for change!

[Yellow#5]

by LOLhedgefunds

[hadunc]

This kind of thing makes me 'vom in my mouth a little bit' as well. If you are applying to grad school and you 'already know' the 'tertiary texts' for your dissertation (indeed, if you even believe that this is a hard-and-fast category), you are not intellectually curious, and you are why grad school is filled with extremely uninteresting people who participate in the reproduction of an intellectually eviscerated, irrelevant academy.

Wow, my feelings exactly. What I get frustrated with regarding the world of academia is that even though the majority are very intellectually driven, they have the exact same tendency to put their collective minds in a box as everyone else does. Some get so bogged down in theory that they can't even see the big picture anymore, or consider any alternatives. This kind of close-mindedness is extremely disappointing in a field where you'd think everyone would be so open to new perspectives. Also, a lot of academics tend to forget that when they are studying a text they are essentially studying the culture in order to pass that knowledge along to society. Our culture is composed of everyday, ordinary people engaged in ordinary endeavors. Therefore the study of culture should not be relegated solely to the realm of the intellectual elite, it should be something in which we all participate. My personal philosophy is to never forget that even though I may one day find myself in the Ivory Tower, the work I do should be for everyone, and for the purpose of helping others to understand themselves and their culture. In my opinion, an academic essay should be just as accessible to a waitress or a window washer as it is to another academic. Mind you, I'm not saying that the average person reads an academic essay for fun, but essays should be written with the intent of sharing knowledge with everyone, not just a select few. I'm also not saying that academic work should be dumbed down at all. I just find academic jargon irritating because it's purpose is to show the writer's status as a member of an elite group, not to contribute to human knowledge.

I don't mean to make myself sound naive and idealistic, nor do I expect to enter academia and then totally change the system or anything like that. I have no such illusions. I am not anti-academic in the least bit, I'm only pointing out the major flaws that I see.

[omgninjas]

hadunc, although I agree with most of your points, I'm not certain how that applies to people who may have overdetermined their educational goals in their statement of purpose. I'm not in a graduate program yet, but here's how I feel about your question:

I don't think any program will expect you to have everything planned out. Still, the clearer your statement of purpose can explain who and where you're pulling your ideas from and how you see your unique "question" (however you might describe it at the moment, since as people have pointed out, it will inevitably change) engaging your field, the better an idea a school can get of how you fit. I feel like it's hard for a program to get excited over a student they can't "place" within their intellectual community.

I have fairly off-beat, widespread interests, but I think I was able to pull them together enough to kind of see which schools suited me. I'm not sure how well I articulated this in my statement, but I've been pretty successful, so I feel as though I explained myself alright. I certainly didn't end up listing all of my fascinations, partly because the length of the statement forbade it, but mostly because i wanted to strike the balance between too narrow and too broad.

It might have been the hardest part of the application, since to improve it I had to literally just sit down and think my way through my own work, but it was also the most rewarding.

[LOLhedgefunds]

Our culture is composed of everyday, ordinary people engaged in ordinary endeavors. Therefore the study of culture should not be relegated solely to the realm of the intellectual elite, it should be something in which we all participate. My personal philosophy is to never forget that even though I may one day find myself in the Ivory Tower, the work I do should be for everyone, and for the purpose of helping others to understand themselves and their culture. In my opinion, an academic essay should be just as accessible to a waitress or a window washer as it is to another academic.

I don't really agree with this. I think academic work should be somewhat self-referential, because when you try to make it "accessible" (to the point where it needs to be understandable by the entire literate or even reasonably well-educated community), ideas often become more cumbersome and less incisive. I don't want to drag this point out but basically - for work to be "for everyone" (this part I agree with), it does not need to be immediately accessible to everyone (i.e. those without a specialist training). To make it thus accessible implies a wider public sphere to which academic arguments are not really addressed.

[hadunc]

LOLhedgefunds,

I don't disagree with your point either. Perhaps I should have been more clear. I don't think that academic writing should be geared toward the masses, if you will, I just really dislike language that's specifically meant to be exclusive. I don't mean that there shouldn't be technical terms in a professional field, because that would be virtually impossible. What I'm specifically referring to is academic writing (in all fields, not necessarily literature alone) that is blatantly and purposefully exclusive, meaning that the author uses technical language to a point where their meaning becomes totally obscured. I think there were some excellent examples posted on the board earlier of such writing. There's a difference between writing for an educated audience and specifically writing so that only a select few can actually determine its meaning. Such writing is egotistical and pointless, in my opinion.

[jasper.milvain]

I agree. It seems like having a good, well thought out question you want to explore is better than having a well thought out reading list.

These aren't mutually exclusive options. If you have a good, well thought out question, you've likely come to it through reading, and you can gather together the texts (primary, secondary, whatever) that inspired you and use them to find other texts that participate in the same conversation.

I agree that like everyone else, academics can have tunnel vision. But equating tunnel vision and doing a thorough job of framing your research proposal seems counterproductive to the OP's inital problem.