Crisis of Discipline

[apres-coup]

Maybe acceptance season isn't exactly the best time to enter the conversation, but here I am!

 

I'm currently in the process of re-situating myself in the disciplines. I'm a history major moving toward English study. My undergrad is at a major research university/major state school that gets outshined by the better research university/public school in my state. (Not to mention outshined by our athletics reputation.) (It's not hard at all to figure out who I'm talking about.) We're strong in history, but much less strong in English.

 

My second major was in an interdisciplinary arts & humanities college. It's a brand new college, modeled after similar residential-experience-at-giant-university programs in the midwest. Most of my work there was with art history, american studies, gender studies and cultural studies professors.

 

This isn't exactly my first time at this, though. A few years ago I was a McNair Scholar* and was pushed through the process of vetting and visiting history programs. I was a successful history student--and am fully prepared to give you all my patented How My History Major Prepared Me For Working In Literary Fields speech--but I don't want to work in history. After that, I started preparing applications for Gender Studies programs, mostly WGS Ph.D options. I never submitted any applications because I felt too rushed during my last fall semester of undergrad, but I'm glad I have taken some time to distance myself and do some exploration. When you're in gender studies, a lot of people in disciplines spend a lot of time warning you to stay out of the standalone interdisciplinary programs because they are "unmarketable" or, you know, "terrible ideas" while at the same time those interdisciplinary programs spend a lot of time and energy marketing themselves to you. (This applies as much to american studies and cultural studies as it does to WGS, really.) I was convinced--and maybe this is influenced at least a little by so many rigid history departments at big research schools--that there was no discipline that could really support the kind of work I wanted to do in gender theory, performance studies, visual studies, etc. But of course, after working briefly with an English/WGS professor and exploring the careers of some of my favorite theorists/critics, I've realized that what I want to do fits pretty squarely in many English and Lit programs.

*Does anyone else have McNair experience? I know a lot of alum don't end up in the humanities as much as professional programs, STEM, and social sciences, but I am curious about how this is regarded by programs.

 

Luckily I haven't technically "graduated" so I have decided to take the next year or so to bolster my work. I'm going to try to take at least 5-6 English classes, since I've only taken one non-composition class in the English department, and build more relationships in the English department as I work on my writing sample. (My writing sample is a film studies piece.) (Some of my humanities college courses were lit classes, but that's one of those things I have to work to demonstrate.)

 

Do any of you have similar experiences? I know the obvious answer is "just get a masters to transition into the field," and I am looking into those options. But I really think that I have a handle on the theoretical questions, methodologies and issues of disciplinarity that I need to enter the field. And I'm working to strengthen myself. I'm just working to make sure that I can demonstrate and articulate why I belong here to prospective peers and programs. 

 

Okay though, I have to say: while I know I'm going to need to work hard defending myself as a non-major, my absolute biggest insecurity is my alma mater. I know there is no easy way to address this, but can anybody ease my worries? Should I be worried about how my not-terrible but not-wonderful state school is gonna look to top-twenty English programs? I feel like there are so few people with BA's from schools like mine in Ph.D programs anywhere. I'd love some comfort. Or, maybe, some comfirmation that Cornell will absolutely not look at someone out of a B.A. at a just-okay state school in the midwest. If that's the case.

 

 

[Two Espressos]

 I was convinced--and maybe this is influenced at least a little by so many rigid history departments at big research schools--that there was no discipline that could really support the kind of work I wanted to do in gender theory, performance studies, visual studies, etc. But of course, after working briefly with an English/WGS professor and exploring the careers of some of my favorite theorists/critics, I've realized that what I want to do fits pretty squarely in many English and Lit programs.

 

Okay though, I have to say: while I know I'm going to need to work hard defending myself as a non-major, my absolute biggest insecurity is my alma mater. I know there is no easy way to address this, but can anybody ease my worries? Should I be worried about how my not-terrible but not-wonderful state school is gonna look to top-twenty English programs? I feel like there are so few people with BA's from schools like mine in Ph.D programs anywhere. I'd love some comfort. Or, maybe, some comfirmation that Cornell will absolutely not look at someone out of a B.A. at a just-okay state school in the midwest. If that's the case.

 

I hail from an even humbler institution than yours, and I'm on a very small waitlist at a top-twenty English program--UNC-Chapel Hill-- and have a good chance of being admitted.  It is definitely true that educational prestige affects your chances at elite programs; this is an issue we don't discuss enough, to be honest.  But while I don't have an acceptance in hand at present, my even being waitlisted at a program as strong as UNC's proves that it is possible to beat the odds.

 

I'm also really uncomfortable with the idea of English being a catch-all kind of discipline.  I think we, as prospective English scholars, should carefully examine this.  But I digress...

[jazzyd]

Having not taken that many non-comp English courses, what is it that draws you to the discipline? Just curious.

Edited February 22, 2013 by jazzy dubois

[bluecheese]

There are programs that put a heavy emphasis on gender and women's studies and some that don't  (find the ones that have great faculty in your area) -- University of Michigan even offers a dual degree. You might want to consider applying to top Gender and Women's Studies and American Studies programs too. It you get into a top program and do interesting research you'll be in a good position to get a job (even if you're in an interdisciplinary field). 

 

I do think that film can be read as literature -- so there is definitely room for that in English departments (honestly, a literary reading of a film will often quite different from the technical or rhetorical readings that one finds in communications departments and so on). If you can backup your application with a solid writing sample and focused SOP there is no reason that you can't get into a top program. Go for it!

 

 

 

Also, if you're that worried -- apply to a few funded MA programs (preferably at major research institutions) as backups. 

 

Apply realistically (schools that fall within the range of your test scores, GPA, etc.), and widely. If you don't have the scores, etc. you might want to go for an MA first in order to boost them. If you do -- go for it!

Edited February 22, 2013 by bluecheese

[practical cat]

You're absolutely underestimating the reputation of your school and how it will look in the eyes of ad comms.

Further, education prestige does matter -- I think my school has helped to compensate for my relatively-bare Lit background -- but it is not everything. It's possible to come from Yale and strike out and possible to come from Unknown University and get in. I do think your bigger concern is your background (speaking, again, as someone who also has a thin history in the discipline). So if you're getting a handle on that, and it sounds like you are, no one is going to be looking at your school's lousy football team.

Also, I want to note that I don't think "defending" oneself as a non-major is necessarily the greatest strategy. I let a couple of my letter writers handle the issue of speaking to my interdisciplinary training and spent my SOP demonstrating my abilities/knowledge not my weaknesses. Totally early for this advice, I know.

[bfat]

My background is in film (BA) and I have an interdisciplinary MA, and I was accepted into 1 good program and waitlisted at another, so it's possible. I emailed UMich to see if my non-English background would hurt me, and they were really nice (their website specifically asks for English backgrounds) and told me I should apply anyway. I'm really glad I did.

Cornell, however, even though they say they accept all backgrounds, took a big ole crap on my dreams, despite 2 visits to the school and meeting with several profs. So it really is a toss up.

But my degree is from a totally crap school that no one has ever heard of (must be worse than yours), so maybe that's why? I probably will never know, but a "humble" background in not-English isn't the end of the world.

[Gauche]

I am not a McNair Scholar, but I know a couple of them at my school, and they are hard working individuals. Furthermore, they seem to be highly regarded at universities as I always see them offering McNair students a waiver for application fees.

[apres-coup]

Like probably billions of other women's studies students, I have a strong background in media studies and film, even though that's not really what I want to do. Our film studies program (like a lot of them) is housed in the English department. Frankly, I thought "film can be read as literature" wasn't very controversial anymore? And most of the top-20 programs seem to have a strong representation of film theory faculty? (Even if these universities also host film studies programs otherwise.) People like Aviva Briefel, Carol Clover, and Kaja Silverman came out of or are in English/Rhetoric programs, and they were pretty big names in feminist film theory. (Again, not what I want to do, but I thought this relationship was a fairly well-established one.)

 

I guess what "drew me to the discipline" is that I was looking for a place that can support memory studies, performance theory, and embodiment and most of the people working in those fields are in English programs. I am thinking especially of Cvetkovich, Ngai, Elizabeth Freemann, Lisa Lowe, Lauren Berlant of course, Peggy Phelan, Shirley Samuels, etc.--not necessarily people I'm dreaming of working with but people who influenced me, who are influential in these areas and who are influential for their work developing performance, visual, spatial, archival, public studies as textual inquiries that belong in English.

When I said I haven't taken many non-comp English classes I meant "in the department," because most of them have been situated elsewhere. The classes I have taken in the English department were all lit theory classes. I'm weakest in breadth and have huge holes in my experience when it comes to canon. (It's probably a terrible idea, then, to take the GRE subject test now, before I take my English breadth classes, but I've got the time and I guess I'll just see how it goes.)

 

Cornell, however, even though they say they accept all backgrounds, took a big ole crap on my dreams, despite 2 visits to the school and meeting with several profs. So it really is a toss up.

This is good to know! I've got some time to decide, but I have to say that Cornell has a lot to offer what I'm looking for...
 

[bluecheese]

Like probably billions of other women's studies students, I have a strong background in media studies and film, even though that's not really what I want to do. Our film studies program (like a lot of them) is housed in the English department. Frankly, I thought "film can be read as literature" wasn't very controversial anymore? And most of the top-20 programs seem to have a strong representation of film theory faculty? (Even if these universities also host film studies programs otherwise.) People like Aviva Briefel, Carol Clover, and Kaja Silverman came out of or are in English/Rhetoric programs, and they were pretty big names in feminist film theory. (Again, not what I want to do, but I thought this relationship was a fairly well-established one.)

 

I guess what "drew me to the discipline" is that I was looking for a place that can support memory studies, performance theory, and embodiment and most of the people working in those fields are in English programs. I am thinking especially of Cvetkovich, Ngai, Elizabeth Freemann, Lisa Lowe, Lauren Berlant of course, Peggy Phelan, Shirley Samuels, etc.--not necessarily people I'm dreaming of working with but people who influenced me, who are influential in these areas and who are influential for their work developing performance, visual, spatial, archival, public studies as textual inquiries that belong in English.

When I said I haven't taken many non-comp English classes I meant "in the department," because most of them have been situated elsewhere. The classes I have taken in the English department were all lit theory classes. I'm weakest in breadth and have huge holes in my experience when it comes to canon. (It's probably a terrible idea, then, to take the GRE subject test now, before I take my English breadth classes, but I've got the time and I guess I'll just see how it goes.)

 

This is good to know! I've got some time to decide, but I have to say that Cornell has a lot to offer what I'm looking for...

 

 

I really think you'll be fine applying after reading this -- you're on top of what is cool! Thumbs up! (I say this having quoted Peggy Phalen in my application essay, and having mentioned a good third of the other people in my SOP. >.O

 

I think you should apply to as many programs as you can afford that have faculty that you want to work with (honestly, 15-20 isn't too many despite what some people say... it will give you options both in terms of faculty, funding and location once the dust settles). Also, be sure to take the subject test!

[Ategenos]

The GRE subject test doesn't really require breadth of knowledge, just to take the potential fear of it away. What it requires is one of the good prep books (I remember the Princeton Review one was awesome), which pretty much tells you which works/authors are most likely to come up... and lo and behold, they do.

 

Acquiring breadth of knowledge is good, of course, and to be encouraged. Just thought I'd say it because taking some English classes won't necessarily prepare you for it (the test is too broad for targeted classes to do anything)... getting one of these prep books, however, will do the job nicely.

[apres-coup]

The GRE subject test doesn't really require breadth of knowledge, just to take the potential fear of it away. What it requires is one of the good prep books (I remember the Princeton Review one was awesome), which pretty much tells you which works/authors are most likely to come up... and lo and behold, they do.

 

Acquiring breadth of knowledge is good, of course, and to be encouraged. Just thought I'd say it because taking some English classes won't necessarily prepare you for it (the test is too broad for targeted classes to do anything)... getting one of these prep books, however, will do the job nicely.

 

I started working on my practice booklet after I posted this! My scores are "definitely not passable for entrance" but already improving. (Someone in another thread mentioned that how easy it is to change your score on this test pretty much proves how useless it is, which resonates.)

 

I was afraid of it, but I'm strong enough in the theory sections and I have enough of a framework to get it. Gotta work on that brit lit though.

 

But given my insecurities, I want to have a really safe score on the subject test to demonstrate that I have some approximation of "proficiency." Just a little padding, I guess.

Edited February 23, 2013 by apres-coup

[Ategenos]

Oh, I don't see it as entirely useless. The ones who get the appropriate books and do the learnin' show that they know their way around ridiculous systems, something you have to get used to in academia. ;P

[bluecheese]

Oh, I don't see it as entirely useless. The ones who get the appropriate books and do the learnin' show that they know their way around ridiculous systems, something you have to get used to in academia. ;P

 

This.

 

I usually suck at these tests -- but I crammed my ass off (for just four days, but for like 12 hours a day) and I managed to pull an okay score (I didn't take the subject test). The subject test does seem totally doable though - you don't need THAT high of a score, just one that his high enough.

Edited February 23, 2013 by bluecheese

[bfat]

Oh, I don't see it as entirely useless. The ones who get the appropriate books and do the learnin' show that they know their way around ridiculous systems, something you have to get used to in academia. ;P

 

The problem is, though, that it really requires a lot of those "survey" courses that undergrad English majors take. As I mentioned before, my BA was in film, so almost all of my English courses were heavy duty grad seminars where we studied 7-10 works very closely over the semester.

 

I also studied my ass off, but for months, and I ended up with only a 77% ...

 

Hint: study lots and lots of mythology. There was so much of it on the test I took, and that was an area I thought I was relatively strong in... Also, Romantic and Victorian poetry. These were my weakest spots, and I flubbed just about all of those questions.

 

ETA: I'm talking abut the subject test, of course. The general GRE is much easier to study for.

Edited February 23, 2013 by bfat

[asleepawake]

The GRE subject test doesn't really require breadth of knowledge, just to take the potential fear of it away. What it requires is one of the good prep books (I remember the Princeton Review one was awesome), which pretty much tells you which works/authors are most likely to come up... and lo and behold, they do.

 

It's interesting that you had this experience, because I found that almost nothing from the Princeton book or the Vade Mecum website actually appeared on my exam. I spent a lot time studying superficial information about works (most of which I have since forgotten, and which had no long-term positive effect of my knowledge). My score was pretty bad, though I honestly thought it would be worse. Luckily, I only sent it to 2 schools. It seemed to me like they had specifically written my exam to avoid things from the standard study guides. I took it in April of last year, so YMMV.

Edited February 24, 2013 by asleepawake

[Ategenos]

It's interesting that you had this experience, because I found that almost nothing from the Princeton book or the Vade Mecum website actually appeared on my exam. I spent a lot time studying superficial information about works (most of which I have since forgotten, and which had no long-term positive effect of my knowledge). My score was pretty bad, though I honestly thought it would be worse. Luckily, I only sent it to 2 schools. It seemed to me like they had specifically written my exam to avoid things from the standard study guides. I took it in April of last year, so YMMV.

Ah, I took it in... October of 2011... got 670. Maybe they changed it inbetween the dates, or maybe it was just pure chance? The other option for study, if this is the case, is just to read ALL of the Norton Anthologies (well, at least British Lit & American Lit). They might not have all the authors' works, but it gives you the language and style to look out for... and I'd imagine they usually draw the questions from their most popular works anywho.

[jazzyd]

It's interesting that you had this experience, because I found that almost nothing from the Princeton book or the Vade Mecum website actually appeared on my exam. I spent a lot time studying superficial information about works (most of which I have since forgotten, and which had no long-term positive effect of my knowledge). My score was pretty bad, though I honestly thought it would be worse. Luckily, I only sent it to 2 schools. It seemed to me like they had specifically written my exam to avoid things from the standard study guides. I took it in April of last year, so YMMV.

 

Agreed. The Princeton Review had a hierarchy of pieces that were MUST READS, pieces to be familiar with, and stuff that maybe could pop up. Sounds great in theory, did not pan out for my test even remotely.

 

Again, I'm glad that reputable programs even know how bull---- it is. Yes I realize it is the Literature in English test, but I wasn't aware that literature hasn't progressed past John Donne.