Gameplan Advice/Feedback

[intextrovert]

Anyone read that Joan Didion essay "On Self-Respect"? Where she says that after she was not elected to Phi Beta Kappa, "I lost the conviction that lights would always turn green for me, the pleasant certainty that those rather passive virtues which had won me approval as a child automatically guaranteed me not only Phi Beta Kappa keys but happiness, honor, and the love of a good man"?

Well, I did get elected to Phi Beta Kappa, but I had that moment last year after being rejected by nine English PhD programs (one, UT Austin, was the only one that was a waitlist and then rejection). I graduated from a prestigious liberal arts school at the top of my class in 2007, with a 3.82 overall/4.0 English major GPA, won some awards in English and for writing, was a peer tutor, studied French here and in Paris, wrote an honors thesis that won some awards at my college; as for the GRE, I have a 800V and 740M, 5.5AW, and 680 Lit Subject Test. I get the feeling - especially looking around this site, full of truly impressive candidates who nevertheless received a long line of straight rejections, often several years in a row - that a lot of PhD applicants are like me, used to excelling, and sort of floored when the doors don't open, despite feeling deserving. It is humbling, and discouraging, and sort of hard to figure out where to go next. But maybe it's not so bad to shed faith in "passive virtues," so I really want to be more active in the process this time. The problem is that information about what is actually required to gain admission is so nebulous - so I'm asking you all for help!

I have a few theories about why I was unsuccessful last time, aside from the fact that the programs are unimaginably competitive. I would really appreciate anyone telling me which parts they think are right, which are wrong, which are good ideas, which are bad ideas, how to go about fixing those problems, whether I missed anything - anyone who knows anything about it!

1. I applied to only schools in the top 25 or so on the US News lists. One of my advisors told me that it's not really worth it to go through the whole process in a school that's not in the top tier, since the job market out of grad school is so absurd that you won't even be in the running for a tenure-track position if you didn't get your PhD from a truly top program. I'm barely able to think about job markets yet, but I just have that feeling that, though inexact, those rankings do have to correlate with quality, don't they? And I want to be inspired during grad school, work with the best! Nevertheless, I'm thinking of expanding a bit this year - dropping a few absolute-top programs and adding a few in the 30-range. Is this wise? What do you think of my prof's advice? Rankings?

2. I didn't make any contacts at the schools where I applied - just sent 'em off. I get the feeling that's a big mistake. Everyone now keeps saying, "make contacts! Make contacts!" But what kind of contact, exactly? I went to visit a few schools a few weeks ago, chatted with the profs I think I'd be interested in studying with. They were great, gave me info on the programs, etc. - but what else can I do? Did anyone actually establish ongoing contact? What did you talk/write about? I see faculty who have written some interesting things, but don't know what to say. "Hey, great article - I'm interested in the same things!" It just seems unnatural, and networking was never my forte. How do you do that?

3. My writing sample. Here's something I'm worried about: as I said, I went to a prestigious liberal arts school. I wrote an honors thesis that my profs were impressed with, but I'm realizing that even though I do mention a few scholars and allude to some theory, it's mostly just close reading. But that was really all my school emphasized - we had a theory course, but weren't really encouraged to incorporate that much of it. Now, I don't LIKE that. I'm fascinated by theory, and want to be engaged in the discourse. But that's part of what I want to get from grad school: knowledge of that stuff, how to use it, etc. With a few exceptions, I don't know the big dogs in my areas of interest. How much theory and knowledge of current scholars in your area do you think schools expect you to have? Is your writing sample well-immersed in the discourse, or more naked? Am I handicapped because my school didn't emphasize that? How can I research/fix that?

4. I had no idea how to write a statement of purpose. Along with my writing sample, I'm going to spend a lot of time on it this summer. But it's a similar question: how specific are you in what you want to study? Do you list scholars, faculty you want to work with? How many, and how in-depth? Do you write different ones for different programs?

5. I'm a Modernist. Interested in all of it, but have tended to focus on American in the work I've done. Am I wrong in thinking that this is one of the most competitive within an already competitive field?

6. I had no teaching experience. I know this probably doesn't matter that much - but do you think it is at all a plus that I've been teaching senior English this past year, and will be next year, at an academically rigorous private school?

7. My GRE Analytical Writing was a 5.5, not a 6.0. Does that matter to tippy-top programs? I know my verbal and math are fine, and I think 680 (91st percentile) in the Lit Subject Test is okay. But I never hear about AW, and I know most applicants have a 6.0. I've won awards for my writing, and I just hate those standardized things! I just want them to read my stuff to see if I can write, not listen to the GRE people. I get paranoid about that stuff, cutoffs and first-round eliminations and whatnot.

Thank you all so much in advance - this is my first post, and it seems like a great group of people on this board. I really appreciate contact with people who know something about it all, or are at least in the same boat! Sorry for the egregious length of this post.

[engguy]

1. I applied to only schools in the top 25 or so on the US News lists.

Definitely expand. Go for fit over rankings. For what it's worth, I turned down a top-20 offer last year for a lesser-ranked prog. -- for fit. Will I have a hard time finding a job? Who knows? Not worth worrying about for now.

2. I didn't make any contacts at the schools where I applied - just sent 'em off. I get the feeling that's a big mistake.

Not necessarily. Didn't make a single contact at any of my schools and went 5/8. This is not to say you shouldn't be as familiar as possible with faculty you might want to work with.

3. My writing sample. in my areas of interest. How much theory and knowledge of current scholars in your area do you think schools expect you to have? Is your writing sample well-immersed in the discourse, or more naked? Am I handicapped because my school didn't emphasize that? How can I research/fix that?

This raises a red flag to me. Theory is catnip to adcoms (see the judith butler thread!). I would try to read a few books and/or take another course and work some into your samples.

4. I had no idea how to write a statement of purpose. Along with my writing sample, I'm going to spend a lot of time on it this summer. But it's a similar question: how specific are you in what you want to study? Do you list scholars, faculty you want to work with? How many, and how in-depth? Do you write different ones for different programs?

Another flag... Sample and SOP are absolutely paramount, I believe. I would be as specific as possible without narrowing your focus so much that it sounds too narrow.

5. I'm a Modernist. Interested in all of it, but have tended to focus on American in the work I've done. Am I wrong in thinking that this is one of the most competitive within an already competitive field?

Popular, sure, but every field is tremendously competitive. Certainly wouldn't keep you out.

6. I had no teaching experience. I know this probably doesn't matter that much - but do you think it is at all a plus that I've been teaching senior English this past year, and will be next year, at an academically rigorous private school?

Sure it's a plus -- but most incoming Phds don't have teaching experience. Not a big deal.

7. My GRE Analytical Writing was a 5.5, not a 6.0. Does that matter to tippy-top programs?

All your GRE stuff looks fine. I did 5.0 on the writing. I would think unless you really bomb the writing part, it's meaningless, as they have your sample; your verbal is well above whatever cut-off they might have.

Good luck!

[elaleph]

Some myths need serious dispelling.

One of my advisors told me that it's not really worth it to go through the whole process in a school that's not in the top tier, since the job market out of grad school is so absurd that you won't even be in the running for a tenure-track position if you didn't get your PhD from a truly top program.

Your advisor, and anyone else who parrots this advice, is dead wrong. There are English programs that are UNRANKED!! (yes, not ranked at all by USNews) that have placement rates above 80% (yes, TT). These placements, of course, are at different kinds of institutions than the placements of Yale grads. Small SLACS, CCs, R2s and R3s, and state branch schools are more common placements for lower-ranked programs, but their students are getting good TT jobs. Unless you are so picky/arrogant that you only want to work at a Top R1 (Ivies, Publics Ivies, etc.), you are being ridiculous in limiting your application to the top-25 programs.

adding a few in the 30-range

Try for the 30-100 range, and possibly beyond. But you should still be picky: Don't go to the school ranked 40 with a 40% placement rate if you have a funded offer from the number 61 with a 65% rate. And fit should be the biggest factor.

I didn't make any contacts at the schools where I applied

Neither did I, and I am pleased with my success.

even though I do mention a few scholars and allude to some theory, it's mostly just close reading. But that was really all my school emphasized

My undergrad institution also emphasized close-reading over critical research and theory. Knowing that this wasn't going to cut it, I spent TONS of time reworking my writing sample into a work that effectively dialogues with recent criticism. You've got time, so do the same.

I'm a Modernist.

So am I. While this is undeniably a very popular sub-field, I think the problems it causes are somewhat overstated. Remember, it is also a popular sub-field for undergraduate classes, which translates into more demand for teachers. Any chance you can sell yourself as trans-Atlantic? One of the professors at my undergrad is a trans-Atlantic modernist, and he is capable of teaching (and does teach) both British and American survey courses. Needless to say, this kind of pedagogical flexibility is highly desirable.

If you have a genuine interest in a less competitive sub-field (say, 18th century women's letters), then it might be a good idea to switch. If your heart lies with Modernism, then you shouldn't let this question keep you up at night.

I had no teaching experience

This is not a negative in the slightest. However, the teaching experience you are currently gaining will definitely be a plus.

My GRE Analytical Writing was a 5.5, not a 6.0

Because the AW section is so recent, very few schools use it at all in admission decisions. Simply put, it's a big unknown. Years of experience has shown how good a predictor the verbal and Lit GRE is of grad school success (good enough to be used in admissions; not good enough to be highly important in admissions). In the future, this might be the case with the AW, but as things are now, it's not an issue. Besides, 5.5 is pretty good.

[intextrovert]

Thanks so much, engguy and elaleph! All of that is really helpful. Interesting that neither of you see contacting faculty as important - though I am glad to hear that, and that you both got into good programs without. Do you feel the same way about campus visits?

I do plan to make it my main objective in the next few months to read up on theory (Paul Ricoeur, here I come!) and put my essay in dialogue with other scholars. Your responses reinforce the importance of that for me. Honestly, theory interests me more than simple close reading, but I've felt sort of frustrated and daunted by my relative lack of formal instruction. I know some of the major people, Lacan, Derrida, Fish, Said, etc., but hesitate in how to actually apply those ideas. And then there's the problem of catching up on what's being said now within the more narrow scope of my essay (and figuring which contributions are significant). Elelaph - it's encouraging to hear that it can be done, despite an undergrad department's relative neglect of such things. Though I don't know if I can get my jargon up to Judith Butler level in six months. Or ever.

I do think I can sell myself as a transatlantic Modernist - in fact, my thesis was transatlantic! That's a great suggestion.

[rising_star]

Note: not in English, never have been, never will be

4. I had no idea how to write a statement of purpose. Along with my writing sample, I'm going to spend a lot of time on it this summer. But it's a similar question: how specific are you in what you want to study? Do you list scholars, faculty you want to work with? How many, and how in-depth? Do you write different ones for different programs?

I would definitely be specific about who you want to work with. List as many as is necessary. Definitely write different ones for different programs. I was quite successful with this approach in a social science discipline. Why? You have to tell them that you're a fit with them and show them. Show them who could supervise your dissertation, who you plan to take courses from, that you can form a committee, etc. I think the more in-depth you can be, the better.

6. I had no teaching experience. I know this probably doesn't matter that much - but do you think it is at all a plus that I've been teaching senior English this past year, and will be next year, at an academically rigorous private school?

Teaching experience won't get you in or kick you out. They'll probably throw you into teaching freshman comp either way.

[lotf629]

First of all, that essay rocks, and I'm so grateful you shared it!

Second of all, it basically sounds to me as if you may have been sunk by your SOP and sample, which may not have been ready for prime time, and that you might be able to do much better when you reapply. Here I'm summarizing Engguy.

As for expanding your search, I think a lot depends on whether you see yourself as a teacher who researches or a researcher who teaches. If you have serious research ambitions, I think that you were wise to aim for top-25 schools. On the other hand, Engguy rightly points out that it's dumb to restrict yourself to these programs out of a misguided sense of prestige.

Fit is enormously important, yes.

Will I have a hard time finding a job? Who knows? Not worth worrying about for now.

Engguy, I gotta disagree , strongly, not necessarily in your case but in the OP's. IMO, the best time--and maybe the only good time--to worry about whether you'll be able to get a job is *before* you commit six years of your life to a program.

Not necessarily. Didn't make a single contact at any of my schools and went 5/8. This is not to say you shouldn't be as familiar as possible with faculty you might want to work with.

I also got in to some schools at which I contacted no-one ahead of time (several of which were in the top 25). I will say, however, that it probably helps *a lot* to make contact with people ahead of time. The best offer I got (the one I took) was at a place where I had had both coffee and lunch with my potential advisor.

I have a suspicion, though it could be false, that at least one of my letters to that program was somewhat tailored to it...I had one professor in particular who felt that I would be a good fit for that school in particular, and I have a feeling he said so in his letter. So you might add that to the mix (trying to get some tailored recs, at least for your top choices).

This raises a red flag to me. Theory is catnip to adcoms (see the judith butler thread!). I would try to read a few books and/or take another course and work some into your samples.

Mmm, yeah. My sample was pretty steeped in the discourse: it had a three-page bibliography. This, I would certainly fix. It will take you a long time (longer than you expect) but is very very possible. Also, even if you are mostly a close reader, you want to show some awareness of *other people's* close readings: you can do close reading and engage in the discourse simultaneously.

I'd say: start by turning your writing sample into a research paper. Do you know how to do good research? There's a thread about it somewhere.

Another flag... Sample and SOP are absolutely paramount, I believe. I would be as specific as possible without narrowing your focus so much that it sounds too narrow.

Yes yes yes. Engguy is right again. And also, OP, yes to all your questions. You are quite specific about what you want to study. You don't list scholars, but you work them in to the SOP. Better still is to cite them in your writing sample (in a way that actually makes good scholarly sense, not in a sucking up way). I knew what dissertation I wanted to write, and I wrote my SOP about it. On the other hand, I think most people are far less specific than that...just to say that it might be hard to be too specific.

Popular, sure, but every field is tremendously competitive. Certainly wouldn't keep you out.

Sure it's a plus -- but most incoming Phds don't have teaching experience. Not a big deal.

I agree with Engguy: your AW score matters not at all unless it's like a 2.

Some programs might prefer a slightly higher GRE Lit score. Northwestern, I believe, wants 700+ across the board. If you're reapplying and you still have your eyes on top programs, I'd aim for a 720-730. You should be able to find those 50 additional points; there are threads about it. PM me if you want; I invested way too much time and energy on that test, which was dumb, but I can at least tell you how to ace it.

Also, don't make the mistake of putting too much faith in high GREs . I thought that mine (800V/750M/770Lit) would be a help, and I am confident now that they were no more helpful than they would have been if they were merely good enough. Try to hit the threshold for your goal schools and be done with it.

Good luck!

[a cup of coffee]

My writing sample was only close reading (my bibliography had three sources, the two texts I used and one secondary source), and after reading this, now I'm kind of unsure how I got in anywhere. I think I would have done much better if I had waited a year out of undergrad and used my thesis as a writing sample, but luckily things worked out. I think the advice here is spot on, though, and I believe fit is the most important thing to look for. I think the main point of the SOP, aside from summarizing your interests, is to show that you have done a lot of research into their program. I also didn't mention any current scholarship anywhere in my application, because I, too, will have no clue what is going on until grad school. I only decided on my area of focus after taking a class the last semester of my junior year, and didn't learn a lot of the background theory and scholarship until working on my thesis, after sending in all my applications.

Anyway, my point is that I think a lot of this is random, although of course it's a great idea for you to strengthen your application along these lines. But I wouldn't feel too down about it, you know? Though that is a great line from Didion.

As for the GRE scores, I think they can be helpful at demonstrating certain things, like, I got a 730 on the subject test, which I think might have helped make up for having no clue about theory, since I do have a really broad knowledge of the "canon."

I also had that problem of all my professors telling me "oh, I recommend Princeton, and UVA" when I asked them where I should apply. Sticking to the top of the rankings is just ridiculous, in retrospect. Also, I've noticed some programs seem to prefer students with an MA, some prefer students with only a BA (I think Michigan comes right out and says this on their website). That might help?

[booksareneat]

All of this is good advice (I feel like there should be a FAQ for Lit applicants: if you apply to only top 20 schools, you are dumb) and have only a couple extra notes.

You want to know your discourse better, so figure out--what do you mean by Modernism? Then, figure out what are the journals and conferences that you need to go to (Modern Fiction Studies, for example). Then, read every issue (obviously skimming) for the last five years of those journals. Make notes not just on who is talking about exactly what's up your alley, but in terms of style and theoretical approaches. That way you can get an idea of the lesser critics in the field (Ricoeur is great, but that's like saying you're going to visit Big Ben when you go to London--there's a lot more).

A brief final note. I spent years trying to get into a PhD program, asking every opinion, working on my SOP and knowing the work of all the scholars I wanted to work with and you know what? All of my perfect fit schools rejected me and I'm going to a great program that is a pretty alright fit. This is just to say: nothing about this process will ever make sense. That's why you apply to a lot of programs, broadly spread out (in terms of rankings and fit). Good luck.

[jabberwocky]

5. I'm a Modernist. Interested in all of it, but have tended to focus on American in the work I've done. Am I wrong in thinking that this is one of the most competitive within an already competitive field?

Everyone above has given great advice and has said most of what needs saying. I just want to emphasize and re-emphasize, for the glory of Shakespeare, the Virgin, the Buddhas and everything else sacred, unless you are truly, deathly, and undeniably passionate about Modernism, apply as something else. This sub-field has been impacted for the last twenty years, and it has gotten to the point where profs in my undergrad program have said that the put the modernist apps in one pile and take 2-3 because they can't place their graduates, regardless of the quality of their students. I would recommend reading this thread at the Chronicle forums: http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/topic,48190.45.html, but in case you don't have the time to go looking, I will post a forumite's response here.

Pandora says:

Re fields which are more or less competitive: like others here, I would advise absolutely _no one_ to do 20th c. American lit. except those who wish to do ethnic / minority lit. The competition is inSANE. I've heard of depts. receiving over 200 applications for a single position -- people who have two book contracts barely getting a handful of interviews at MLA.

Medieval, 18th c., and pre-20th c. American are much better, but of course you need multiple language skills (Latin, linguistics and/or willingness to learn both Old and Middle English) for Medieval. And if you do 18th c. you need to be versatile enough to teach everything from Chaucer to the 19th c. novel to cover British surveys. If you're going to do anything pre-19th c. it's a good idea to join a program where you will be trained to do archival research, since that will set you apart from the crowd. Romanticism appears to be nearly dead on the basis of recent job postings.

If you're going to go into this field, carefully review the job postings on MLA from the past few years and read through the wiki job postings in different fields (see link below). Esp. read the bottom of the 20th/21st c. American lit. page to get a sense of how rough that field is. Be canny about the field that you choose.

And if I were going to do it all over again, I would seriously consider doing Comp/Rhet. Yes, it's less intellectually "sexy," perhaps, but it makes an enormous difference in your ability to choose where you're going to live and build a life, and you may get paid better. If you can train to be a Writing Center Director, _that_ is a job that appears to pay very well, and I see dozens of listings for that kind of administrative position on the MLA job postings every year.

[intextrovert]

Do you know where? I've poked around some, but couldn't find it. I'm sure I can find some on my own, but I could use some direction.

Let me say that it sounds to me as if in all this your biggest problem may have been that you weren't working closely with a faculty advisor who really knew how to help students get in to strong Ph.D. programs. Who were you talking to? Did they have a track record of getting students in to places? Is there anyone in your department who *does* have such a track record? Can you politely haunt their office hours? I'd figure out who in your department has historically been the most help to Ph.D. applicants and then go get to know them regardless of their specialty.

It is true that I didn't have a lot of great guidance. Truthfully, in my department that was hard to come by. It's all part of the same problem: though it's a great school, it's in its liberal art college world, sort of isolated from the larger academic community. Not many profs too focused on getting people ready for grad school. Unfortunately, I'm now living and working thousands of miles away, so it would be hard to find a new mentor.

Some possible to-dos:

1) Start reading more widely in the secondary literature. Maybe make it a goal to spend an hour or two a week on this.

2) Research advisor fit, not just program fit. Read in the top journals in your field (sorry, I know nothing about Modernist pubs) and see whose work gets you excited. Conversely, look up the faculty at the schools to which you might apply and read their work. Read, also, the work that they cite most enthusiastically. Ask your own faculty contacts for advice in this process. Expand your search beyond the top 25.

3) Get that GRE Lit score about 700 (should take you 20-30 hours, I bet).

4) Get to work finding some research questions that interest you.

5) Find an astute faculty member to mentor you through the application process. Tactfully ask around the department about Ph.D. placements, maybe, and see if you notice that the advisees of Prof. X come up again and again and again.

6) Take a look at some successful statements of purpose and model yours after theirs.

I love this list! That's really helpful. Aside from #5, since I'm nowhere near my alma mater and faculty is sort of out of it anyway, it all looks manageable - a lot of work, but manageable. For #3 - Do you really think it's worth it to retake the test for 20 points on the Lit GRE? Berkeley's site says 650 is average for admitted Ph.D. students, so I figured my 680 was fine...if it will really be a deciding factor, I'll do it, but I'm just dreading the idea of hitting the Norton for that again!

And to jabberwocky: will it help the specialization problem if I present myself as interested in transatlantic modernism and ecocriticism? I'm interested in that period mostly because of thematic preoccupations that appear most frequently then, but I can locate those themes in other literature as well.

It's amazing how random it all seems to some degree - some people get in with just close reading essays while others think theory is paramount (I think in my case the latter is probably true), some think contacting/visiting is important, others don't...but I'm going to err on the side of doing more, not less this time.

[jabberwocky]

Intextrovert, the thing is, if you take a look at the last MLA job postings, most jobs still ask for candiates to lean towards one side of the Atlantic. Of course, 20th century studies has been going transatlantic for years, you'll notice it in the sort of classes colleges now offer, even at places which are not R1 or research based at all. The problem seems to be that you end up having to apply as 20 c. American or Mod. British to do that sort of work. Most departments offer those classes to entrenched modernists who lean toward one one side of the ocean, so they're generally not looking to hire new people specifically for this. Moreover, even if you get away with applying as a 'transatlanticist' you can be refused a job because you're not specialized enough, you become a jack-of-all-literatures who does not seem qualified. This seems to extend down the academic bean-pole to graduate admissions. I would urge caution. Ecocriticism is quite interesting, but if you could extend that to another period, preferably pre-20th century (though contemporary popular might work as well), so much the better, the more innovative, and the more groundbreaking. Make sure you do speak to your interest in other themes of whatever period you choose, so that you are not considered over-specialized (the other pitfall in this process). What if the prof you want to work with is not on that admissions committee? You want to sound appealing to as many people in the department as possible while maintaing a strong interest in one sub-field. All in all it's a delicate balancing game which, as everyone below points out, is unfair most of the time.

[lotf629]

Here's the thread:

viewtopic.php?f=56&t=16167&p=77812&hilit=MLA#p77812

I would do whatever you can to get some good advice from TT people. Two things come to mind:

1) Is there an R1 near you where you could audit a course or otherwise make some connections? Auditing (and doing the work well, of course) can be a great way to gain a contact because it allows you to begin getting to know a professor without requiring him/her to make a commitment to you.

2) My experience was that, when I contacted potential advisors, they were often willing to give me general counsel other than the obvious "you should apply to work with me and come to our school." If there's any way you can get some face time with your potential advisors to ask them about *their* program, you may find that they are willing to give you broader advice, too.

3) Is there any conference you could attend?

I understand the problem of geographic limitations, and I'm not suggesting you spend a million dollars flying all over the country. At the same time, I think you should try to be creative and resourceful about making connections: do as much as you can from where you are to get face time with TT people. Even just a little bit could help.

As for the GRE Literature test, hmm, I dunno. If you have to pick between time spent on your sample and time spent on the GRE Lit, you should work on your sample, no question, and forget the test. However, if you have time to do both, I think you should retake. Berkeley says "those admitted score, on average, 650 (88%) or higher": I don't know what the hell "an average of 650 or higher" means , since I think an average is by definition not a range, but my guess is that 650 is somewhat lower than the actual numerical mean. My impression is that while a 680 is not going to keep you out, a slightly higher score might help you a little bit at some programs. It's a very small thing when compared to the rest of your application, but then again, you're competing with 30-40 other people for every spot, so you should do every little thing you can. See if you have the time for it.

Finally, there was another related thread with some useful advice (KFed2020's comments come to mind): viewtopic.php?f=56&t=16246&p=76866&hilit=harvard#p76866. You might want to check it out.

[booksareneat]

Something else that comes to mind is that you have varied interests (not necessarily bad). If you're talking about modernism, then there are schools that will come to mind (many obvious), but that list may be separate from the ecocrit schools. For example, when I was talking to Oregon, I was suprised to hear they were trying to make themselves an ecocrit school (or at least emphasizing it).

For one school you might emphasize your ecocrit chops (I'm talking about your SOP) and for another you may emphasize other strengths and interests.

Also, I would disagree with the GRE subject test comments--680 is good, not great. You won't be going to Harvard, but it won't keep you out of, say, Washington or another good program.

I came from the great liberal arts school, but they aren't tied to "the field" situation, too. I went to get my MA at a research 1 and within a month I had learned 1,000x more about "the field." (Though, I still loved my undergrad).

[lotf629]

Yeah, I guess the Subject test thing depends on where you want to go. You said something about "tippy-top" programs in your post, so I was thinking Harvard/Yale/etc. when I gave my advice. But I agree with booksareneat that at most places the 680 is fine, and I tend to overemphasize standardized tests myself, so you should probably take me with a grain of salt.

[kfed2020]

Also, I would disagree with the GRE subject test comments--680 is good, not great. You won't be going to Harvard, but it won't keep you out of, say, Washington or another good program.

680 is a great score. 'Great.' But it will make no Elaine Scarry of you, that's for sure.

FYI, all -- at least three members of the Princeton cohort this year had <630 on the Lit GRE. Out of 9 people. That's a third. Not insignificant, I'd say.

Just sayin'.

[newcircuitry]

Having recently attained what I consider success in the admissions cycle, I think what I would emphasize amidst all of this great advice you're getting is not stuff like your scores (what compelled me to respond is really that our numbers are unsettlingly similar! In any places we differ, you actually performed better than I did. To think our roles could so easily have been reversed if numbers mattered so much...). Admittedly, I went to a high-ranked undergraduate program, my field is Renaissance, and my adviser is, as professors go, fairly well-known in the field. Yet I think the success of my application was a concept one of my advisers directed me toward: coherence. The overall package of my application presented as much of my intellectual development as possible, and emphasized my particular strengths. This centered on my writing sample. I was not confident, at first, in my writing sample and personal statement, but I expended so much sweat on them that I honestly believe they pushed me through the gates of some great programs. Here's my suggestion:

Theory, or at least a knowing nod to theory, is pretty important. Knowing (and also being able to close-read with a sense of historical purpose) non-canonical literature also helped me (though this may be less significant for studies in Modern). My writing sample was a chapter of my honors thesis, but I opened it with a survey of the theoretical techniques and touchstones I utilize throughout my thesis (such as speech-act theory, languages and political thought, etc.). I also noted the most important figures in my theoretical development right in my personal statement, a sentence or so each. This formed discernible links between my personal statement and my writing sample. In my statement, I was also sure to list 2-3 (sometimes 4) professors at each school. One Renaissance, at least, but also at least one (in whatever field) whose theoretical approach I could relate with.

The next step is to demonstrate to the people writing your recommendations how you've developed this broad-scope theoretical approach. Impress them with your reading of certain theorists, ask them for opinions on which theorists and what literature you should consider. Also ask them for which faculty members you should include in your statement. This is all stuff, I think, they'll remember to put in your recs, as well.

Honestly, you have everything you need to get into a top-20 school (I only applied to those, too). The "coherence" approach worked for me, and I think it turned out a pretty good application. Very best of luck.

[GoodGuy]

. Unless you are so picky/arrogant that you only want to work at a Top R1 (Ivies, Publics Ivies, etc.), you are being ridiculous in limiting your application to the top-25 programs.

Just curious...I understand all the talk about the lack of jobs for Humanities grads and the inevitability, as people put it, of ending up teaching comp at some Podunk U. after getting the PhD, but I don't understand comments like the one above.

Why is it considered "picky/arrogant" to "want" to work at a Top R1 upon graduation or afterwards? I can't speak for anyone else, but I'd like to think there is some possibility of landing a good or great job at some point in my academic career. Otherwise what's the point of putting all the time and work and energy and passion into the process--to NOT want to work at a Top R1 or other good-to-great SLAC? I'd like to think that having that desire, even knowing the potential for NOT landing at one of them, isn't about "pickiness" or "arrogance" but, maybe, "ambition" or just a desire to play on the biggest field one can. When I was applying to grad schools, I had a few criteria for programs I wanted to go to--but most of all the rule was they ALL had to be places I'd WANT to go to, pretty much, as a first choice. And they were all Top 10 places. It didn't seem odd to want to be at a Top-10 school, IF the "fit" was right and I was hoping for a job upon finishing (particularly as I'm in an interdisciplinary humanities field, where I hear all about the "lack" of jobs.) And I acknowledge that as hard as I worked to make my applications as competitive as possible, I was lucky in my acceptances in a hard year.

I went to an Ivy undergrad, and will matriculate at one for my PhD grad studies in the fall. I'd LIKE to think I might be able to teach at one when I get my degree without seeming "arrogant" about it! I may; I may not--I might end up at what they call "Podunk U." But to call the ambition to want to be at a "top" school arrogance strikes me as odd.

Or am I parsing language too much and missing some larger point? I'm really curious...

GG

[elaleph]

some possibility of landing a good or great job at some point in my academic career. Otherwise what's the point of putting all the time and work and energy and passion into the process--to NOT want to work at a Top R1 or other good-to-great SLAC

THIS is why such ambition is oftentimes tempered with arrogance. Your post is a perfect example of why I said arrogant: you imply that the "good or great" jobs only exist at Top R1s. There are good and great jobs at universities that are FAR removed from from the Ivies and their peers. I would wager that most of us on this board did not attend the type of institution you did for undergrad, and I bet that almost all of us are extremely satisfied with our undergraduate education. Otherwise, why would we be looking forward to Grad school?

teaching comp at some Podunk U

Teaching comp can be frustrating, but it is also an important service that an English department provides to universities and society. These are the classes in which students really learn how to do research, write, and employ critical thinking. Doing a successful job teaching comp may, dare i say it, be more important than all but the most brilliant monographs.

Besides, no TT professor is only going to teach into to comp: not even the comp professors do that.

The term Podunk U isn't exactly a humble move on your part, either.

end up at what they call "Podunk U."

"end up"? If you do "end up," as you so enthusiastically put it, at an R2 or regional SLAC, I hope that you won't live the rest of your life in bitterness in having your "ambition" disappointed.

Your post reveals ignorance and condescension towards universities that aren't tier 1. Do you really think that being a professor at an institution that privileges the education of students over "publish or perish" is so undesirable?

[GoodGuy]

THIS is why such ambition is oftentimes tempered with arrogance. Your post is a perfect example of why I said arrogant: you imply that the "good or great" jobs only exist at Top R1s. There are good and great jobs at universities that are FAR removed from from the Ivies and their peers. I would wager that most of us on this board did not attend the type of institution you did for undergrad, and I bet that almost all of us are extremely satisfied with our undergraduate education. Otherwise, why would we be looking forward to Grad school?

Teaching comp can be frustrating, but it is also an important service that an English department provides to universities and society. These are the classes in which students really learn how to do research, write, and employ critical thinking. Doing a successful job teaching comp may, dare i say it, be more important than all but the most brilliant monographs.

Besides, no TT professor is only going to teach into to comp: not even the comp professors do that.

The term Podunk U isn't exactly a humble move on your part, either.

"end up"? If you do "end up," as you so enthusiastically put it, at an R2 or regional SLAC, I hope that you won't live the rest of your life in bitterness in having your "ambition" disappointed.

Your post reveals ignorance and condescension towards universities that aren't tier 1. Do you really think that being a professor at an institution that privileges the education of students over "publish or perish" is so undesirable?

I suspect it's easy to make your points by parsing out phrases in my response to your post, rather than quoting them in context. That's cool. But--perhaps I didn't express myself that well, and I've been up for many hours now and may not be doing the best job--you didn't really answer my question: what's "arrogant" or "picky" about "wanting" to teach at an R1 or Ivy? Especially if that is what one--not me, necessarily--wants to do?

My use of "Podunk u." comes from seeing the phrase used on many grad info boards as an example of what might happen to a recent humanties grad--one may have to take a job in some far-off or small town place rather than some glamorous "high-ranked" place. Which happens, as I'm sure you know--if I could count the number of times I've heard or read someone say that English/Am Studies/etc grads will never get a job after grad school or will have to take one at some small out-of-the-way outpost... It wasn't a value judgement at all, believe me! I did not mean to imply that those at R1/Ivies are the ONLY "good or great" jobs, but for some people, let's be honest, they are! Yet to accuse them of being arrogant or picky for WANTING that strikes me as bitterness-- or something--on your part!

I wouldn't be bitter to "end up" wherever I get a job; at the end of the day, it's about, for me, teaching students and publishing the best work that I can. But, that's still separate from what one's ambitions might be--and I still don't see the "arrogance" or "pickiness" about WANTING to work at a more glamorous place/location/institution. It really is no secret, is it, that some institutions have some resources that other places do not. It's like telling a young filmmaker that she's being arrogant or picky to WANT to work in a setting that might grant her access to certain good or extensive editing or production equipment.

I'm also well aware that everyone was not educated at the type of school I was. I also recognize (and acknowledged in my post) the luck that goes into so many of these chances we get and choices we make. I don't begrudge anyone their educational opportunities--Ivy, state school, comm college whatever--and what they make of them. It sounds as if you do. I'm not here to champion the value of the Ivies--believe me, they don't need me for that!--but I also know what kind of value is placed on them in the world we live in.

As to your final quote: "Your post reveals ignorance and condescension towards universities that aren't tier 1. Do you really think that being a professor at an institution that privileges the education of students over "publish or perish" is so undesirable?"

My post does nothing of the sort. I merely questioned YOUR use of "arrogant" to describe one's desire to work at one of those institutions. You can parse my phrasing as much as you like, but your ignoring my original question regarding YOUR language makes me think that your own reverse condescension is what should really be questioned.

At the end of the day, we are the same, I think: I just want to get through grad school, get my PhD, and get a job. Anywhere. Those who want to work at the glamour spots, the R1s and Ivies, who want to publish or perish, more power to them. More power to all of us. All I ask is that you keep it real. And don't try to make others feel "arrogant" for wanting what they want.

[teaganc]

what's "arrogant" or "picky" about "wanting" to teach at an R1 or Ivy? Especially if that is what one--not me, necessarily--wants to do?

Nothing. Just like there is nothing arrogant about wanting to win the Nobel Peace Prize. But saying, "Why do people even bother to get a PhD if they aren't going to fulfill my personal dreams" is off-putting, at a minimum. Personally, I would love to teach at a medium to large state school with a focus on teaching because I loved that experience and the department as an undergrad. It's insulting to hear someone ask why I would even bother getting a PhD if that was all I wanted to do with my life. It was good enough for my professors, and they made a genuine impact on me as a student while publishing their own research. I'm sorry if that goal is too lowly for you to understand.

I wouldn't be bitter to "end up" wherever I get a job; at the end of the day, it's about, for me, teaching students and publishing the best work that I can. But, that's still separate from what one's ambitions might be--and I still don't see the "arrogance" or "pickiness" about WANTING to work at a more glamorous place/location/institution. It really is no secret, is it, that some institutions have some resources that other places do not. It's like telling a young filmmaker that she's being arrogant or picky to WANT to work in a setting that might grant her access to certain good or extensive editing or production equipment.

I mean, this. Come on! I'm not saying I want to get a PhD and work at Walmart, for godsake. And there are lots of non-Ivy/R1 schools that are in great locations, (and some great schools in crappy locations) so I'm not sure what location has to do with anything.

At the end of the day, we are the same, I think: I just want to get through grad school, get my PhD, and get a job. Anywhere. Those who want to work at the glamour spots, the R1s and Ivies, who want to publish or perish, more power to them. More power to all of us. All I ask is that you keep it real. And don't try to make others feel "arrogant" for wanting what they want.

No one is trying to "make [you] feel" arrogant--believe me, you don't need us for that! So don't try to belittle others for wanting what they want.

[a cup of coffee]

Seriously, "ending up" at some "Podunk U" is actually a highly desirable outcome for a lot of us. You want to work 60+ hour weeks for the rest of your life? More power to you. I'm at a major research university right now and I've gotten some perspective on what it's like for professors working at the top of their field. Sure, you may have lots of prestige, but the lifestyle is just not for everyone. And attending a top university doesn't guarantee your ticket to a high-paying research job. You gotta do the work, too, son.

[elaleph]

I answered the question as to the link between ambition and arrogance. It is due to the attitude of "having to settle," which you continue to exhibit in the language in your second post.

I don't begrudge anyone their educational opportunities... It sounds as if you do.

I don't, but you should realize that some do. There are cases in which teaching colleges skip Ivy phds because these phds have exhibited the attitude that I am criticizing. In numerous cases, when an "ambitious" person takes a job at a teaching-oriented institution, they immediately begin looking for ways to "move up." It is one thing to discover that one is not a good fit somewhere (the library has absolutely no holdings in one's subject, for example. Or one's upper-level classes are routinely canceled due to lack of student interest). It is quite another to never give the place a chance.

It is not the desire to teach at an Ivy that is arrogant. It is the culture that denigrates phd grads who desire and take jobs that are not R1 that exists at top-20 schools that creates this attitude. Many professors at my undergrad who received their phds from top schools spoke of experiencing this. My undergad is well-respected, but they still got questions such as "Why would you want to apply there?"

My use of "Podunk u." comes from seeing the phrase used on many grad info boards as an example of what might happen to a recent humanties grad

Just because its a common term does not mean it is not condescending and perjorative.

have to take one at some small out-of-the-way outpost...

I'll never understand people's hang-ups regarding location: Manhattan is the same as Montana in my book. I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority regarding this however.

I think a bit of elucidation of my idea of arrogance is necessary. For me, pickiness and arrogance are very closely related. Someone saying "I want to teach at Columbia, but I guess I'll be fine settling for Southern Alaska A&M" is, for me, just as egrerious as someone who says, "I want to marry a supermodel, but I guess I'll settle for Josephine." They both sound horribly arrogant and even vicious to my ears.

Look, the reason I used the word arrogance was because of this phrase from the OP:

One of my advisors told me that it's not really worth it to go through the whole process in a school that's not in the top tier, since the job market out of grad school is so absurd that you won't even be in the running for a tenure-track position if you didn't get your PhD from a truly top program.

Both arrogant and false.

Another important distinction I should make is between goals and expectations. You are right that desiring an R1 position isn't arrogant. A goal can never be arrogant. Silly or foolish, yes. But not arrogant. If someone has the expectation that they can only do good research, or only be happy, at a Top R1, I say that that is arrogance.

So to answer your question, "Why is it considered "picky/arrogant" to "want" to work at a Top R1 upon graduation or afterwards?"

It isn't. I thought that my first post had read something along the lines of "picky/arrogant to think you (or worse, others!) can only be happy at a top R1." That was what I wanted to say. So, really, we aren't arguing over my orginal intention. I misspoke in my first post and wish I had realized it before we started arguing.

My advice is still legitimate, and is something I think many applicants need to hear. Unless you only desire a job at a top R1, and recoil in horror at the so-called Podunk U in the middle of nowhere, please don't limit your applications to the top-20 programs. I personally know one person who primarily wants to teach undergrads. Unfortunately, she fell for the myth of the Top-20 and got burned (unsurprisingly, it was impossible that she would be a good fit at a research-intensive place, even though her research interests were fits).

And don't try to make others feel "arrogant" for wanting what they want.

I'm trying to do nothing of the sort. I'm am trying to get people to ignore the bad advice of the arrogant. The good thing about criticizing arrogance is that the arrogant won't be hurt by it: they're too arrogant!

I just want to get through grad school, get my PhD, and get a job. Anywhere.

Good! In that case, I recommend you drop the pernicious idea/diction of Podunk U.

You criticize my criticisms of your language, but the language, and the attitude it reveals, is exactly the problem.

Some of us want to teach at what you and others call Podunk U. The continued condescension showed towards such universities is the arrogance of which I speak.

[intextrovert]

Whoa, this thread got really heated really quickly!

I think understand where both of you are coming from. It's only natural that when you're starting out in the process, you'd want to reach for (what is typically perceived as) the biggest prize. I do dream of teaching and researching and publishing at a R1 or a great SLAC like my undergrad. That's sort of what I envision as the ultimate goal of going to grad school, so when I hear that top 20 is going to get me there, that's what I automatically focus on. But since that didn't happen the first time around, I'm trying to dig deeper and figure out the real reasons I want this, and whether or not they could be satisfied by a different route. But I do think both "yes" and "no" are valid answers to that question, and the former isn't necessarily settling and the latter isn't necessarily arrogant.

I teach now at a wonderful, academically rigorous private secondary school in an area of the country that could probably be pretty easily described as "podunk." I admire a lot of the faculty here, and see them as people who could easily be teaching at the university level, maybe even top schools, but choose not to (and many of them do have PhDs). Teaching is taken very seriously here. So when I ask myself whether I want to give 6+ years to get a degree, I have to ask whether what I get when I come out will be different enough from what I'm doing now to warrant it. No doubt that teaching at the university level is different from any secondary school, no matter how academically rigorous, but the type of thing you describe, elaleph, a lesser-known school with a heavy focus on teaching that really inspires its students, sounds like a college version of the school where I work now. And that's not what I envision at the end of getting my degree. Maybe I will change my mind or decide it is different enough to devote that time, but in any case the question does make the only-top-20 question relevant.

I think we all love literature, love teaching, love researching and writing, so if it came down to it we'd be happier as profs anywhere than not. But going to a less prestigious grad school will limit the range of choices you'll have later on, because that's the way the world works. Although there's absolutely nothing lesser about deciding to teach at one type of school over another, one of those options happens to be less difficult/impossible than the other (not better!), and deciding how prestigious of a grad school to aim for means facing those choices that otherwise, you might not have had to face until later on. It looks like elaleph may have already made that decision (as evidenced by the condemnation of the publish-or-die ethos, if I interpret correctly), which is fantastic. But GoodGuy doesn't have to yet. Maybe GoodGuy will go to Harvard and decide after to teach at one of those less prestigious schools and be totally happy, or happier - who knows? But I don't think there's anything inherently arrogant, either, with wanting to teach at a top tier school and being fixated on making that happen (and I don't think GoodGuy seems arrogant about it). It's a particular type of experience/life, and it means you're doing it for different reasons, but each has its merits for different people.

I, for one, am going to work my butt off on my app, apply to top-20 schools and a few lower ranked ones that are good fits, and then cross my fingers and hope it gets me where I want to go!

Anyway, I really did want to thank everyone who gave me advice - I sort of overwhelmed by the goodwill of knowledgeable people willing to so extensively help total strangers over the internet! I feel like I have some great direction now; I'm feeling energized. Also a little anxious about all the work I have ahead of me, but now I know what that work is, which is what I wanted. I'm genuinely grateful. Thank you!

[elaleph]

I never meant to state or imply that GoodGuy is arrogant. So sorry about that. I was reacting to his adoption of words and phrases often used to disparage universities that seek to go about their educational mission in a different manner than the Top R1s.

My desire to teach at a non-top SLAC or a good, teaching-oriented state school is inspired by a desire to emulate the professors who I respect at my undergraduate university. As I am going to a good R1 for graduate school (not nearly as good as GoodGuy's, of course), it is possible that I will change my mind and decide to pursue a research-oriented position. But I doubt it. You are right, intextrovert, that I cringe at the thought of living within the "publish-or-die ethos." I feel that I can contribute more to the humanities as a teacher than as a researcher (though I certainly do have some good ideas for research I plan to do).

I bet that GoodGuy wants to emulate the brilliant researchers that he learned under at his undergrad.

[GoodGuy]

I seriously apologize if my words came off in any way condescending. That really was never my intention. I "lurk" at a site at the Chronicle of Higher Education, and from reading there, I get the impression that terms like "Podunk U" is used as rampantly by "grad school insiders" as "SLAC" and "R1" and "TT" -- none of which I'd even heard of before I started reading the posts there! Also I'd like to clear up that I never meant to imply that the Ivy or R1 job was "the best." I think they might be "the best" for some people--and to many people, layfolk and academics alike (witness the advice given to the OP) those names do carry weight--but if it ever about real choice when getting a job (and everyone warns me that it won't be) I do believe in "fit" and what works best for any individual.

That said, my best friend, who slogged through the grad app process a coupla seasons ago warned me, in very explicit terms, to "STAY AWAY FROM THE INTERNET CHATS ABOUT SCHOOLS". It would only by turns, he said, be frustrating, chilling, and at worse, mis-representing, both of many of the people who post at such boards and of myself. Now I see what he meant. It can be hard to express points clearly here with the right shifts in tone and meaning--and I consider myself a decent writer (who has learned the importance of teaching comp, interestingly, after my first year adjuncting this past year, and being AMAZED at the abysmal quality of some student writing.)

If anything my initial reaction to elaleph's words ("arrogant", "picky") had more to do with my own experience as an Ivy Leaguer, which you do get used to, the assumption we are all these "arrogant" "picky" elitists who can only cavort among ourselves. And I should have made that clearer from the jump. Also, I should have made clearer that the education of young people--wherever they study--is the most important thing to me: the importance of which was drilled into me as a kid, by parents who DIDN'T go to Ivy League schools or raise me with an expected Ivy spoon in my mouth. And even though I don't think of myself as elite or elitist (or arrogant) for that matter, I have had to start thinking as a realist about just how the world works. And as someone coming to academia after a long professional period doing other things--in a world in which it seems that education is less valued than ever, where the economy is hitting hard at the very educational institutions that have historically seemed immune to such hits--I've had to deal with the possibility that I won't get a job after getting my degree, or at least won't be able to accept one with the cavalier feeling of "choice" that I've been afforded in the past. So there were choices I made about grad school that were informed by, yes, my undergrad experience, but also the expectation that I'll be going up against the very best in the field just to find a job 6 or 7 years from now!

I think intextrovert (great name, by the way!) makes a wonderful point here when s/he says, "I think we all love literature, love teaching, love researching and writing, so if it came down to it we'd be happier as profs anywhere than not." So right. "Podunk U" doesn't sound like a awful place to get a job when I finish my degree. And after a life lived in which I've been able to choose to live wherever I've wanted, I've started to prepare myself for the possibility of not having that luxury--as long as I'll be able to teach students who I hope want to learn and I'm able to research. But knowing myself, and being honest, if the choice for me was between that "out of the way", lesser known school/location and a job at NYU or Columbia, I'd pick one of those two. And only partly because of the "prestige". Mainly it would be because my parents are getting older and live in the NY area...and because I love the pastrami at Katz's deli way too much to pass up the chance to eat it as often as I can...