what if?

[straightshooting]

Intextrovert: I in no way meant to suggest that you have to be 100% certain about what you want to study as you pursue your graduate studies - that would be absurd. What I objected to was the way in which Baldwin (or at least the language that he used) suggested that one decides to apply to graduate school based on a desire to be "intellectual" (whatever that means) in a socially permissible way, not because of the desire to pursue a set of "research interests" (however nascent) with any rigor. The problem with the "intellectual" motivation, as I've observed it during my own time as a graduate student, is that for people in that boat research drive and motivation -- which is requisite for good scholarship -- is secondary to the motivation to be in an "intellectual" setting or to simply be "intellectual." To put it in a different way: your narrative indicates to me that you want to go to graduate school because your primary motivation is to pursue and develop your research interests, which seems quite different from what Baldwin was suggesting. Indeed, he seems to be denying that it's possible to be in your situation. I take it that you're going to graduate school because it's the only way to pursue what it is that you want to do, right?

Shaky Premise: Graduate committees cannot see through applications into motivation all of the time, of course. I wish they could, but they cannot, so the onus is on potential applicants to decide whether they're pursuing a graduate degree for the right reasons. What constitutes "right" may differ for terminal MA programs and PhD programs, but it is quite clear that there are people in most graduate programs who do not demonstrate the motivation or ability to complete their program, which I would argue that, in most cases, is something that these people could have figured out before they applied. I don't recall the numbers offhand, but the percentage of people in PhD programs who fail to complete is very high. Deduct a chunk of those who have genuinely extenuating reasons and you're left with the people that I'm talking about. They consume fellowship and TAship money that was denied to potentially more worthy people, let's say, who were left sitting on the wait list. This seems increasingly common given the boom in applications occasioned by the subpar economic climate. I cannot imagine that more people are "seeing the light"; it's that they don't know what else to do. Lastly, "cultural capital" should be a by-product of good scholarship, not the pursued object itself. It certainly doesn't hurt, but it's not the reason to go to graduate school.

Aquinaplatostotlestine: You must not be in the same academic community as I am! In absolutely all seriousness, though, I am rather disgusted with the "might as well" approach to graduate school that I so often come across. Baldwin may have unnecessarily become my straw man here, I'll admit, but I sensed an all-too-familiar subtext in his motivational message. As for your story, the fact of the matter is that when you applied last time and were blanketly denied, there were other people who got in who won't complete their programs because they cannot/don't want to hack it. I'm not in a position to say why things didn't work out for you last year, but you can rest assured that there were people (perhaps you) who had strong applications that were denied in favor of someone with lackluster motivation and ability who shouldn't have applied.

All said, I don't want to pursue any further antagonism; people on this message board are clearly stressed enough as it is.

Edited February 12, 2010 by straightshooting

[Shaky Premise]

Shaky Premise: Graduate committees cannot see through applications into motivation all of the time, of course. I wish they could, but they cannot, so the onus is on potential applicants to decide whether they're pursuing a graduate degree for the right reasons. What constitutes "right" may differ for terminal MA programs and PhD programs, but it is quite clear that there are people in most graduate programs who do not demonstrate the motivation or ability to complete their program, which I would argue that, in most cases, is something that these people could have figured out before they applied. I don't recall the numbers offhand, but the percentage of people in PhD programs who fail to complete is very high. Deduct a chunk of those who have genuinely extenuating reasons and you're left with the people that I'm talking about. They consume fellowship and TAship money that was denied to potentially more worthy people, let's say, who were left sitting on the wait list. This seems increasingly common given the boom in applications occasioned by the subpar economic climate. I cannot imagine that more people are "seeing the light"; it's that they don't know what else to do. Lastly, "cultural capital" should be a by-product of good scholarship, not the pursued object itself. It certainly doesn't hurt, but it's not the reason to go to graduate school.

Fair enough. I guess all I really meant to say (pardon the longwindedness) is that determining who these people you seem to so thoroughly detest actually are is difficult, if not impossible. As you conceded, even adcoms can't sniff them out. And more likely than not, they don't know themselves! Everyone who enters a PhD program intends to finish it. I seriously doubt the people you're trying to smoke out believe they're in it for the wrong reasons or believe they're wasting resources, and they probably couldn't be convinced to give up the chase anyway, particularly if they have professors agreeing to write recommendations for them (which they must). In my opinion, those who can assemble strong enough application packages to warrant admits must have *some* clue as to what they're on about. And if they're slick enough to fake their way in, more power to them. It's a rigorous process even for those of us who are 100% solid on our research goals and long-term plans. I'm just not sure what it boots to gauge our fellows' motivations and ambitions and to wonder if they have any business applying. Some applicants who are applying for all the right reasons today might drop out two years from now for any number of good or bad reasons. And the biggest bonehead in the room who has no idea what grad school is about but somehow finds an admit in his inbox may well develop into a top-flight scholar over the next five years.

[Aquinaplatostotlestine]

Straightshooting: Fair enough, and I can definitely see where you are coming from: for anyone who takes this seriously and is passionate about their work, frustration is the only possible response to the "might as well" apply to grad school approach that you mention. And I never meant to come across as overly prudish, I've certainly employed your picturesque phrase more than once myself with friends over beers (usually in discussions involving Lacan)! Best of luck with all your applications.

Cheers.

[intextrovert]

Intextrovert: I in no way meant to suggest that you have to be 100% certain about what you want to study as you pursue your graduate studies - that would be absurd. What I objected to was the way in which Baldwin (or at least the language that he used) suggested that one decides to apply to graduate school based on a desire to be "intellectual" (whatever that means) in a socially permissible way, not because of the desire to pursue a set of "research interests" (however nascent) with any rigor. The problem with the "intellectual" motivation, as I've observed it during my own time as a graduate student, is that for people in that boat research drive and motivation -- which is requisite for good scholarship -- is secondary to the motivation to be in an "intellectual" setting or to simply be "intellectual." To put it in a different way: your narrative indicates to me that you want to go to graduate school because your primary motivation is to pursue and develop your research interests, which seems quite different from what Baldwin was suggesting. Indeed, he seems to be denying that it's possible to be in your situation. I take it that you're going to graduate school because it's the only way to pursue what it is that you want to do, right?

I read back over Baldwin's post, and I can see now how you may have interpreted it that way, because of the phrasing of "socially permissible" and stuff about wanting to be attached to a respectable institution. If that were the case, then yes, obviously no one should have to fund someone who just wants to impress people with how smart he is and back it up with a nice university, and it sucks that someone like that could push more genuinely motivated applicants out (though honestly, I really think the process itself is pretty good and weeding these people out. Not infallible, but pretty good). But taken in the context of the post, I just think that's a misinterpretation of what he was trying to say. Maybe we're each imposing our own experiences onto poor Baldwin (who hasn't spoken up to clarify, which I'm curious about!) - you perhaps have some preexisting frustration with pretentious applicants who just want the prestige of a PhD and thus found that in Baldwin, and I perhaps interpreted it sympathetically because of my experience as an applicant a few years ago who, while seriously motivated and passionate about academic endeavors, was like, "Research interests? Um, literature?"

I just think it's always better to be a little cautious in jumping to unflattering conclusions about other posters' intentions and WORTH, really, especially when a post is clearly done in the spirit of solidarity, intending to be sympathetic and candid. Not that you can't be critical, but do so diplomatically, especially at first. There's always the possibility that you're misinterpreting, and we shouldn't be here to raise each others' blood pressures, if we can help it!

[AlecBaldwin]

Wow! Hadn't intended my initial post to be quite such a polemic! Of COURSE I'm not going to graduate school for purposes of acquiring cultural capital! Wow, this strikes me as a willful misreading, probably motivated by my strongly expressed skepticism about a lot of the knowledge produced within the academy (ie. my remarks about research interests).

What I was saying about "respected institutions" was that the only way, in our society at least, to balance the desire to spend one's life primarily in intellectual pursuits with the inescapable fact that we have to satisfy basic existential needs (food, shelter, occasional medical care--these things cost money!) is to attach oneself to institutions like universities that have been historically approved by society (read: funded by tax dollars! for the most part anyway) and that can offer financial support and a path toward a modestly paid career. These, I'm afraid, are simply the facts. I don't look to these institutions with any abnormal degree of reverence, I just understand them to be the places in which I can further my own education while also acquiring the skills/credentials necessary for a career that will in turn allow me to spend a lot of time growing intellectually.

As far as research interests go, well, yes I suppose in some very basic sense everyone has "research interests." As inquisitive, contemplative individuals we identify and identify with particular areas of human knowledge that we wish to know a great deal more about. What I don't think we have, or at least we wouldn't without the existence of a graduate admissions process, are these very technical, narrow, limited research interests. We come to define/express ourselves in this way (allow me to stress this: in my opinion!) only because we know admissions committees are thinking about finding folks who will reproduce the established approaches/methodologies/knowledge areas that already exist. I have no beef with research interests as such. I have them too, and for purposes of grad admissions I can refine them quite nicely (or at least the schools that have accepted me thus far seem to think so). My beef is rather with the ways in which we are narrowly constrained by the existing bureaucracy of knowledge in American academia. There seems to be nothing free about free inquiry as it exists in American higher ed.

But the problem is more than just with feeling constrained in the way we are allowed to self-identify. The problem is that, although this bureaucracy produces knowledge, much of it is of pretty dubious quality. And if you don't think so, you probably haven't perused enough academic journals. I think the humanities probably suffer uniquely in this way. This hyper-specialized model works quite well in the natural and social sciences (or so I've been led to believe) but it doesn't seem to me to be at ALL the way one should transmit humanistic knowledge. Again, just my opinion. But I should point out that it really isn't just my opinion. Richard Rorty said a decade ago most of what I've just said above and in my previous post. Louis Menand also has made a species of the same argument.

As for concerns about my use of the word "intellectual," I'm going to wager that those who raised concerns were doing the same kind of willful misreading that I described above re: cultural capital. I hadn't realized this was such a contested term among academics! All I'll say about this is that only in America can even the intellectuals be convinced that "intellectual" is a bad word. People watch too much damn television. Yikes.

For those who defended me against the more abusive/belligerent among us, thanks. Someone suggested that I must have spent a lot of time writing that earlier post. Alas, I probably spent about 3 minutes on the thing. Just meant to be an alternative perspective for someone I saw agonizing in much the same way I'd been agonizing about this crazy process. Maybe I should have spent a little more time and avoided the vitriol! Anyway, happy waiting to everybody.

[hadunc]

As far as research interests go, well, yes I suppose in some very basic sense everyone has "research interests." As inquisitive, contemplative individuals we identify and identify with particular areas of human knowledge that we wish to know a great deal more about. What I don't think we have, or at least we wouldn't without the existence of a graduate admissions process, are these very technical, narrow, limited research interests. We come to define/express ourselves in this way (allow me to stress this: in my opinion!) only because we know admissions committees are thinking about finding folks who will reproduce the established approaches/methodologies/knowledge areas that already exist. I have no beef with research interests as such. I have them too, and for purposes of grad admissions I can refine them quite nicely (or at least the schools that have accepted me thus far seem to think so). My beef is rather with the ways in which we are narrowly constrained by the existing bureaucracy of knowledge in American academia. There seems to be nothing free about free inquiry as it exists in American higher ed.

I've been following this discussion and I thought I'd throw my 2 cents in. I think there are probably many of us who share this frustration that you're voicing. But I think it may have more to do with the philosophies of individual institutions than with the field as a whole. It also has to do with what your particular research interests are. For instance, my interests are interdisciplinary in nature. I will have to pull from many disciplines and methodologies, and I find that very exciting. To a certain degree we are bound by the "established approaches/methodologies/knowledge," but that's pretty much the nature of any kind of intellectual inquiry; I always say, you have to learn the rules before you can learn how to break them.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that you are only as constrained as you want to be. There are without a doubt a growing number of institutions that embrace and encourage interdisciplinary work and aren't so set on pigeon-holing their students into narrow sub-fields. In fact, I think the market is going to demand that we all become more generalized in our interests in the future, but that's just my opinion. It seems to me the tides are turning, but I could be wrong. I hope I'm not!

[Branwen daughter of Llyr]

As far as research interests go, well, yes I suppose in some very basic sense everyone has "research interests." As inquisitive, contemplative individuals we identify and identify with particular areas of human knowledge that we wish to know a great deal more about. What I don't think we have, or at least we wouldn't without the existence of a graduate admissions process, are these very technical, narrow, limited research interests. We come to define/express ourselves in this way (allow me to stress this: in my opinion!) only because we know admissions committees are thinking about finding folks who will reproduce the established approaches/methodologies/knowledge areas that already exist. I have no beef with research interests as such. I have them too, and for purposes of grad admissions I can refine them quite nicely (or at least the schools that have accepted me thus far seem to think so). My beef is rather with the ways in which we are narrowly constrained by the existing bureaucracy of knowledge in American academia. There seems to be nothing free about free inquiry as it exists in American higher ed.

I don't think I'm applying with "technical, narrow, limited research interests" - I've never had them. I don't see academia as limiting them - quite the contrary.

I do know where I want my starting point to be. I do know where I want my PhD research to be oriented on. But truth be told, I'm pretty much interested in most things written between 1066-1900 in the UK. And although my "specialty" is medieval, and internally, Celtic medieval (and its continuing influence), I'm also crossing it with a very non traditional genre - children's fiction and fantasy. Not a whole lot of scholarship there. It's new ground.

From all the information I've gathered, this actually gives me a better chance of pursuing my research interests. Since I also write fiction and hope to get published on that front over the next few years, that gives me an edge teaching-wise, after the PhD (why not hire someone who can also teach writing fiction as well as medieval lit?).

These, however, are just the beginning as far as I'm concerned. My role model is one of my undergrad profs, who graduated with a PhD from Yale in Medieval lit. Since then, she has written and researched a GREAT DEAL more, in many different areas, and has collaborated with profs in different fields to publish some really interesting interdisciplinary work. I think academia, just like everything else, is what YOU make of it. It can limit you, sure. But it also gives you the opportunity to expand and enhance your contribution to scholarship tenfold. Personally, I feel like I have a much better chance of reaching my research goals (and developing them further, after all, I also love the 18th century satirists) in academia than anywhere else. Maybe that's a sad testament to our society, but it's the reality of it.

[PaperChaser]

Straightshooting: While I agree with some of your points (I too think that without the resources the academy provides pursuing research interests past a certain point becomes, if not impossible, at least very difficult), I think Baldwin's well thought out and polite post deserved a more mature response on your part. And speculating on who deserves a spot in grad school and who doesn't, regardless of their motives, is just silly.

Ok, having weighed in with my (unsolicited) 2 cents on that issue, I also wanted to say that this is my second time around applying to grad schools. I graduated years ago (2004), applied to several schools around the country, and got accepted into....wait, let me think, oh yeah, now I remember, not a single one of them :-(. And it sucked, there's no reason to sugar coat the fact that rejection hurts. But by not immediately going to grad school I had the opportunity to do some really incredible things. I lived in a foreign country for almost 2 years, became fluent in another language, I worked in a field completely foreign to Literature, and, eventually, when I realized that a life outside of the university was not something I wanted, I got an M.A. in English Lit from a "nowhere state school" (to steal bookchica's perfect phrase). This time around, my luck has been much better. I've been accepted into one PhD program with funding and am a finalist in another. So don't lose hope. If this is what you want to do, you'll find a way to do it--even if the route there is longer and more circuitous than you might wish.

My experience was similar to the above post (sorry, there's no way I can't mangle your name, but it's lovely!) But I have a slightly different set of stories, if you're interested. One of them (the first) is my own, the others are my sister and my MA thesis adviser, who is now a department head

1. I went to a semi-anonymous state school, failed out, went to three community colleges, and finally got a B.A. in English from a mediocre state school. I then went into pharmaceutical sales (yes, it is that awful) for two years before getting a M.A. from my undergrad institution. I actually LIKED my M.A. program, so I did really well (3.97), but I BOMBED the GRE Lit (sub 50th percentile), did a horrible and unsupervised job of applying exclusively to PhD programs in places I wanted to live (not realizing that STATE schools have to give priority to their own students) and got in NOWHERE. So I taught for a year at a Title I high school, hated it so much that I would do ANYTHING to just get out of (podunk medium sized southern town). So, on a whim and without studying, I hurriedly applied to take the LSAT and sent in recycled rec letters in the hope that I could get in somewhere. Well....turns out I have a knack for the LSAT (178), so my "please someone, just take me" situation changed a bit. I ended up getting into all of the law schools I applied to but went to the one that offered me the most funding. I hated law school, but I figured that-worst case scenario-I could either use the degree to get SOME sort of teaching job in a community college, go into research or consulting, or (really worst case scenario) employ myself. Of course, in my last year of law school, the job market CRASHED, offers were rescinded, the law review was practically suicidal...but my middling grades (3.4) and work experience (same firm all through school-not just summers) got me an offer from the DOJ and from the firm I worked for.

Problem: I didn't want to be a lawyer. Prior to getting job offers-I suspected I might not get any-I applied to PhD programs. I worked really hard on my personal statements to show how my detour through law school made me a better candidate and how it opened a lot of doors in terms of what I would be qualified to teach. I applied to 6 schools and have heard back from 3 - all 3 offered full funding and their top TA-ships. (Since my first choice accepted me, I don't really care about the other 3.) I asked what made me a competitive candidate (never hurts to ask) and ALL of the program directors said that it was because I had a law degree, extensive research and publications in the legal field, and that I could teach in more than one department. So, to those who say "law school isn't the answer," it may not be the ANSWER, but it can be a PATH. My advice to those who do law school in hopes of transitioning would be to go to a school that will at least partially fund you. Unless you stay in the law, where you go doesn't matter (I went to a decent private school in the south), so keep the loans DOWN.

2. My sister (who had high undergrad grades from an Ivy) randomly moved across the country, couldn't find a job, went to rehab....anyway, after a year or so of working at a mental health non-profit, she decided she wanted to get a PhD/MD in Cognitive Neuroscience (Psychology). Problem: She had never had a psychology class. Not ever! She was an English major. So she started taking non-degree seeking classes at the local (luckily, flagship) university, worked really hard, got a research assistantship, charmed the hell out of the department head, and applied the next year for the PhD/MD program. She went to a two-day "finalist interview," thought there was no way she could compete, but ended up getting in, fully funded with a year-round RA position. Fully funded for SEVEN YEARS! Had she not shown up and paid for classes that wouldn't count towards anything (but allowed her to show how smart she is and how badly she wanted into the program), she would not have had a chance in heeeeellll. But...sometimes showing how badly you want it and that you'll do anything ethical to get it works! I think that she had worked (for free, initially) for one of the professors and got to know the rest did it for her. A name with a face and a work ethic tend to trump perfect but basically anonymous apps.

3. My thesis adviser didn't get into a PhD program after his MA. His wife was in law school, so he took non-degree classes at the attendant university for a year and reapplied to PhD programs. He only got into one-the one at which he took non-degree classes-but, as he's said to me many times, ALL YOU NEED IS ONE if it's what you really want.

So, my long-winded point is, there are sometimes ways to get in other than just applying year after year. If you know why you weren't "a top candidate," then work on that. If your outcome goals are super-fuzzy, refine them. If you're dead-set on a top school, maybe consider some other options. Try getting another MA (or JD or whatever) in a field that would mesh well with your existing degrees and make you more marketable when the PhD is said and done. (That was another comment I got-JD=marketability later on..) But don't give up if it's what you really want, because you CAN make it happen. It just might take a little longer or require a little more creativity

[123]

I don't think I'm applying with "technical, narrow, limited research interests" - I've never had them. I don't see academia as limiting them - quite the contrary.

I do know where I want my starting point to be. I do know where I want my PhD research to be oriented on. But truth be told, I'm pretty much interested in most things written between 1066-1900 in the UK. And although my "specialty" is medieval, and internally, Celtic medieval (and its continuing influence), I'm also crossing it with a very non traditional genre - children's fiction and fantasy. Not a whole lot of scholarship there. It's new ground.

From all the information I've gathered, this actually gives me a better chance of pursuing my research interests. Since I also write fiction and hope to get published on that front over the next few years, that gives me an edge teaching-wise, after the PhD (why not hire someone who can also teach writing fiction as well as medieval lit?).

These, however, are just the beginning as far as I'm concerned. My role model is one of my undergrad profs, who graduated with a PhD from Yale in Medieval lit. Since then, she has written and researched a GREAT DEAL more, in many different areas, and has collaborated with profs in different fields to publish some really interesting interdisciplinary work. I think academia, just like everything else, is what YOU make of it. It can limit you, sure. But it also gives you the opportunity to expand and enhance your contribution to scholarship tenfold. Personally, I feel like I have a much better chance of reaching my research goals (and developing them further, after all, I also love the 18th century satirists) in academia than anywhere else. Maybe that's a sad testament to our society, but it's the reality of it.

Yay! Nice to see someone who is interested in children's literature:) I haven't really seen that on these boards.

[Branwen daughter of Llyr]

Yay! Nice to see someone who is interested in children's literature:) I haven't really seen that on these boards.

I've only seen one prof who actively researches children's lit when looking into potential programs - at Cornell. That's why I widened the scope to include Fantasy (found some more, but not many). But yeah, I LOVE children's lit. I still read it, and I think it's an extremely valuable genre to examine - after all, future readers are hooked with it. I was lucky that my dad used to send me all the Newberry medal winners from the states every year, so I got exposed to a good deal of excellent children's literature during my formative reading years (also the reason my English remained so good despite not being in an English speaking country for school). My honors thesis during undergrad was about Welsh Legends in children's lit - how "Celtic magic" enabled child protagonists to change their subject positions in four different book series. I was also lucky that my thesis advisor was a medievalist who also researched children's lit. I got hooked, and I'm hoping to stay in the field

[123]

I've only seen one prof who actively researches children's lit when looking into potential programs - at Cornell. That's why I widened the scope to include Fantasy (found some more, but not many). But yeah, I LOVE children's lit. I still read it, and I think it's an extremely valuable genre to examine - after all, future readers are hooked with it. I was lucky that my dad used to send me all the Newberry medal winners from the states every year, so I got exposed to a good deal of excellent children's literature during my formative reading years (also the reason my English remained so good despite not being in an English speaking country for school). My honors thesis during undergrad was about Welsh Legends in children's lit - how "Celtic magic" enabled child protagonists to change their subject positions in four different book series. I was also lucky that my thesis advisor was a medievalist who also researched children's lit. I got hooked, and I'm hoping to stay in the field

Although it may be a little late in terms of schools, a good resource is the Children's Literature Association's website (www.childlitassn.org). It has a list of all the universities (both US and abroad) that have children's literature programs. It's also good if you want to keep up with CFPs for conferences in the field. Also, the International Association for Fantastic in the Arts always has a children's lit panel at their annual conference (www.iafa.org). Best of luck!

Edited February 12, 2010 by 123

[Branwen daughter of Llyr]

Although it may be a little late in terms of schools, a good resource is the Children's Literature Association's website (www.childlitassn.org). It has a list of all the universities (both US and abroad) that have children's literature programs. It's also good if you want to keep up with CFPs for conferences in the field. Also, the International Association for Fantastic in the Arts always has a children's lit panel at their annual conference (www.iafa.org). Best of luck!

Many thanks But Children's / Fantasy is my cross field, not my main. First and foremost, I'm a medievalist. So whatever schools I end up applying for next year (no, not too late, this year is a long shot anyhow) must have a strong medieval department, as well as at least one prof I can work with for the secondary field. I just like comparing our "need for fantasy" and how it altered from way back when ppl still thought that Gawain and the Green Knight was a true story to today, when we only wish it was

I will check out the website, though.

[straightshooting]

Wow! Hadn't intended my initial post to be quite such a polemic! Of COURSE I'm not going to graduate school for purposes of acquiring cultural capital! Wow, this strikes me as a willful misreading, probably motivated by my strongly expressed skepticism about a lot of the knowledge produced within the academy (ie. my remarks about research interests).

The strong language that you used to characterize the motivations of those applying to graduate school lacked any nuance and came across -- to me anyway -- as advocating a "might as well" approach to graduate school. Admittedly, I was not particularly inclined to give your post a charitable read, because to me your comments reeked of the same "I mean, I like books and being in school, so I should probably go to graduate school" that I hear from a lot of people at the well-ranked program that I currently attend. We'll see where I end up next year after this round of applications.

What I was saying about "respected institutions" was that the only way, in our society at least, to balance the desire to spend one's life primarily in intellectual pursuits with the inescapable fact that we have to satisfy basic existential needs (food, shelter, occasional medical care--these things cost money!) is to attach oneself to institutions like universities that have been historically approved by society (read: funded by tax dollars! for the most part anyway) and that can offer financial support and a path toward a modestly paid career. These, I'm afraid, are simply the facts. I don't look to these institutions with any abnormal degree of reverence, I just understand them to be the places in which I can further my own education while also acquiring the skills/credentials necessary for a career that will in turn allow me to spend a lot of time growing intellectually.

This in no way came across in your earlier post.

As far as research interests go, well, yes I suppose in some very basic sense everyone has "research interests." As inquisitive, contemplative individuals we identify and identify with particular areas of human knowledge that we wish to know a great deal more about. What I don't think we have, or at least we wouldn't without the existence of a graduate admissions process, are these very technical, narrow, limited research interests. We come to define/express ourselves in this way (allow me to stress this: in my opinion!) only because we know admissions committees are thinking about finding folks who will reproduce the established approaches/methodologies/knowledge areas that already exist. I have no beef with research interests as such. I have them too, and for purposes of grad admissions I can refine them quite nicely (or at least the schools that have accepted me thus far seem to think so). My beef is rather with the ways in which we are narrowly constrained by the existing bureaucracy of knowledge in American academia. There seems to be nothing free about free inquiry as it exists in American higher ed.

Graduate programs -- at least when you go from an undergraduate degree into a grad program -- don't actually expect you to be hyper-specialized and focused when you apply. The best personal statements that I have read (and that admissions committee types have told me are the best) are ones that demonstrate aptitude in the intellectual bildung that they provide as well a projection toward some degree of direction, a gesture toward specificity that is not, by any means, locked in. Indeed, showing too certain a trajectory by claiming that you know exactly what your dissertation will look like is a decidedly bad move.

But the problem is more than just with feeling constrained in the way we are allowed to self-identify. The problem is that, although this bureaucracy produces knowledge, much of it is of pretty dubious quality. And if you don't think so, you probably haven't perused enough academic journals. I think the humanities probably suffer uniquely in this way. This hyper-specialized model works quite well in the natural and social sciences (or so I've been led to believe) but it doesn't seem to me to be at ALL the way one should transmit humanistic knowledge. Again, just my opinion. But I should point out that it really isn't just my opinion. Richard Rorty said a decade ago most of what I've just said above and in my previous post. Louis Menand also has made a species of the same argument.

Yes, there is plenty of unsatisfactory scholarship in the humanities -- just as there is plenty of garbage science -- but most in academia can ascertain whose work is solid and whose isn't. Yes, scholars produce scholarship of varying degrees of quality. Yes, there, of course, are problems in academia with people who don't know anything outside of their niche, but I would ask, what is it that you expect out of humanist scholarship? The arguments of Porty and Menand are provocative and in many ways right, but they both (I would say) presuppose the necessity of the academy for doing certain types of work, but seek to identify problems within it.

As for concerns about my use of the word "intellectual," I'm going to wager that those who raised concerns were doing the same kind of willful misreading that I described above re: cultural capital. I hadn't realized this was such a contested term among academics! All I'll say about this is that only in America can even the intellectuals be convinced that "intellectual" is a bad word. People watch too much damn television. Yikes.

The way that you proceeded in your first post distinguished between being "intellectual" and having "research interests" in the context of pursuing graduate education. I gather now that you didn't want to posit a mutually exclusive dichotomy, but the way that you seemed to do so before led me quite naturally to the conclusion that your definition of "intellectual" was of the wishy-washy type.

For those who defended me against the more abusive/belligerent among us, thanks. Someone suggested that I must have spent a lot of time writing that earlier post. Alas, I probably spent about 3 minutes on the thing. Just meant to be an alternative perspective for someone I saw agonizing in much the same way I'd been agonizing about this crazy process. Maybe I should have spent a little more time and avoided the vitriol! Anyway, happy waiting to everybody.

I'd say that more than 3 minutes is probably too long to spend on anything written for a message board!

Edited February 12, 2010 by straightshooting

[TC3]

To return to the original import of this discussion, regardless of the particular readings of subtext, Baldwin importantly points out that most applicants are rejected, admitted, or waitlisted not based on blind merit (i.e. those who make it in deserve to continue working in the Academy while those who are rejected do not), but instead on ad.com. contingencies for which we cannot possibly plan, e.g. notions of professionalization, departmental philosophies, pet projects, political agendas, desired focus areas, similarity to previously admitted students, etc.

I'd venture that a significant portion of applicants (which for a major research university can number from two hundred to over seven hundred for roughly a dozen spots) *deserve* to continue working in the Academy, but only a tiny sliver of those are *allowed* to do so. The Chronicle of Higher Education (recently?) ran an article concerning some disturbing similarities between graduate humanities work and cult psychology, the most striking being that a severe stigma of failing to "cut it" is threatened on those who would have recourse outside of the organization.

For academics, this translates to the paralyzing and sometimes hysterial anxiety that we will be rejected by every program to which we've applied. Because, as such, we will have failed. Because the only laudable use of our abilities is within a system of gatekeeping devices, a game that, despite being rigged from the ver beginning, welcomes all new players with open arms. Kafka's parable of the Law provides an eerily accurate analogy.

I've been rejected across the board in the 2007/2008 and 2008/2009 application rounds (21 rejections total). This is my third try. I'll admit that it took me those two rounds to "figure out" (somewhat) what ad.coms. seek, and I'm pretty confident with my application package this time around. Does it mean that I deserve it any more than I did the first time? Nope. It just means I've learned how to articulate my abilities and interests in a way that will speak to a verry narrow demographic of gatekeepers. And even then, I still can be rejected by every program. Who can *plan* for the contingencies that make one application stand out among hundreds of equally deserving people?

That said, straightshooter is on-the-spot concerning the shocking inability to discern those who will sputter out, and how to those of us who are chomping at the reigns, this appears to be an utter waste and a big middle finger. I received my BA from a lesser-known state research university, and was not given funding for my Masters at a program consistently ranked between 50 and 75 by US News & World Report. At my MA program, the incoming student who had received the most generous funding package dropped out after one year, caving under the expectations of graduate school. The only MA student of my specialization who was funded dropped out because he quickly lost interest and wanted to pursue a more lucrative career in the family business. Another funded masters student couldn't care less about English, but was using the MA as a stepping stone into a diffent focus area at an out-of-state school. Another fully funded masters student has stayed the course, but has nothing other than class transcripts and the requisite GTA teaching load to show for it. Advanced doctorate students in my specialty confided that they didn't plan on staying in the academy after graduating, one even expressing interest in working in Human Resources. Ironically, most of my unfunded peers were more serious about and accomplished in their fields than were many (though not all, of course) of my funded peers. I don't know how to remedy this, but I've unfotunately spend a lot of time being frustrated about it, and can understand if the bitterness gets a little out of hand.

If we can reduce this multidimensional constellation of crappiness to one problem, I'd say that it would be that there is little or nothing for humanities scholars outside of the Academy, whereas a chemistry or business major will be able to use their field knowledge directly in extra-academic jobs. The larger cultural shift away from humanities values (cf. Mark Slouka's "Dehumanized" in Harper's) no doubt contributes to this increasing isolation. If there were tasks for which people could put humanities skills and knowledge to use, perhaps this would act asa filter of sorts for those who otherwise would be forced into graduate study even though their heart is not in it, because it's the only option that makes their previous college study not seem like a waste of time, pragmatically speaking.

[Medievalmaniac]

Yup. On both counts. I've been out of undergrad for nearly nine years. At no time in these nine years have I managed to pursue my love of lit to the level I did in college. I don't have the ppl around me who are interested in it (in fact, when I start talking Chaucer, they yawn and look bored), I don't have the library, I don't have the time and "peace and quiet" to delve in deep. I'm just busy surviving most of the time.

Obviously, the world won't end if I don't get in this year. I'll apply again. But truth be told? There is NOTHING I'd rather do. And trust me, I've tried my hand at just about everything. Unfortunately, we don't live in Paris in the 1920's, where we can sit with all our fellow writers and artists and talk intellectually over a cup of coffee all day long. Life has gotten too expensive for that. And when you're not surrounded by the constant discourse, it tends to lower your drive. At least it does for me. Scholarly discussion is exactly that - discussion. You can't really do it alone.

Oh yeah, and aside from loving poking in old manuscripts and puzzling over the connections between Morte L'Artur and Susan Cooper's The Dark is Rising Sequence, I really love teaching this stuff, and getting students excited about it. And unfortunately, except for some really exceptional high school programs, academia is where the juice is at!

YES. I could have written this post myself. Every word, true, true, true. You know what makes me really angry, though? It's the fact that my first choice is many folks' safety. If you don't WANT to go to a program, don't apply. When I see someone with 8+ applications, I don't think "there's a person who knows what s/he wants in life" I think "that assh-le is probably going to take my spot and s/he clearly doesn't even want it." Nine times out of ten (OK, eight ;op), that person him or herself will tell you s/he "only applied there as a backup". That's really discouraging.

I wish everyone had the foresight to apply only to the schools s/he really wants to GO to, instead of just randomly applying to 8-10 of the top 25 English departments. I know that's generalizing - there are a lot of people here who have clearly done their homework and have very specific reasons for their choices. But there are an equal number of folks with "I don't really know what I want to be when I grow up" etched all over their lists - you know? I'm not trying to be hypercritical, but I do want to point out that for some of us, UNC-Chapel Hill is the best possible option (especially when we are medievalists/Celticists/ Arthurians and they have next-to-God-on-the-Celtic-scale Pat O'Neill and the soon-to-be-emeritus-but-he-could-still-work-with-you-on-your-dissertation-if-you-asked-him-nicely-Don Kennedy (a deity among medievalists).....and for others, it's just a top-25 school they applied to as a safety.

So - if ten folks applied for one slot, and six of them didn't REALLY want it, and the one that gets it drops or transfers midway through....who won? Now, multiply that by the obscene number of people competing for spots at the top 50 or so institutions...wow. I'm surprised any of us is even still functional against those odds!

I'm rambling. I'm sorry. I am not trying to be a Debbie Downer, I just hate hearing so many stories about people who can't get a break, when they know so clearly what they are and what they want, and I know so many others who maybe shouldn't be applying at all yet, and will more than likely drop out or become ABDs. (for the record - I know an equal number of applicants who are wonderful scholars and who I hope get full funding and know will do brilliantly...I'm in no way implying this is even more than a minority....but it is a reality, however small the number of people doing it. And they do hurt everyone's chances all the more, in some cases).

In the meanwhile, for myself, I am dying to do more advanced research, to study Old Irish, Anglo-Norman and Anglo-Saxon, and to write my articles and book(s). I'll certainly do this with or without a program...but with would be easier. I teach at a private boarding school and I get to create my curriculum from scratch, teach whatever I want, the way I want...unlimited (within reason) resources - you can bet I'm not applying to PhD programs because I don't know what I want to be when I grow up, or that I'm not really sure but I THINK this is what I want - because if I am accepted, I will be leaving an extremely cushy job, excellent benefits, and a VERY nice salary...but I'll be going towards my lifelong passions with more guidance and more criticism of what I am doing, which will make me a better scholar, writer and reader, and that is what I want. One way or the other, I will be a medievalist for the rest of my life. I would love to do it in a PhD program with other medievalists as mentors and colleagues...but I have done it for ten years more or less without that and gotten along just fine, if in lonely fashion for the most part.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Medievalmaniac

[hadunc]

YES. I could have written this post myself. Every word, true, true, true. You know what makes me really angry, though? It's the fact that my first choice is many folks' safety. If you don't WANT to go to a program, don't apply. When I see someone with 8+ applications, I don't think "there's a person who knows what s/he wants in life" I think "that assh-le is probably going to take my spot and s/he clearly doesn't even want it." nine times out of ten, that person him or herself will tell you s/he "only applied there as a backup". That's really discouraging.

I wish everyone had the foresight to apply only to the schools s/he really wants to GO to, instead of just randomly applying to 8-10 of the top 25 English departments. I know that's generalizing - there are a lot of people here who have clearly done their homework and have very specific reasons for their choices. But there are an equal number of folks with "I don't really know what I want to be when I grow up" etched all over their lists - you know? I'm not trying to be hypercritical, but I do want to point out that for some of us, UNC-Chapel Hill is the best possible option (especially when we are medievalists/Celticists/ Arthurians and they have next-to-God-on-the-Celtic-scale Pat O'Neill and the soon-to-be-emeritus-but-he-could-still-work-with-you-on-your-dissertation-if-you-asked-him-nicely-Don Kennedy (a deity among medievalists).....and for others, it's just a top-25 school they applied to as a safety.

So - if ten folks applied for one slot, and six of them didn't REALLY want it, and the one that gets it drops or transfers midway through....who won?

I'm rambling. I'm sorry. I am not trying to be a Debbie Downer, I just hate hearing so many stories about people who can't get a break, when they know so clearly what they are and what they want, and I know so many others who maybe shouldn't be applying at all yet, and will more than likely drop out or become ABDs.

In the meanwhile, for myself, I am dying to do more advanced research, to study Old Irish, Anglo-Norman and Anglo-Saxon, and to write my articles and book(s). I'll certainly do this with or without a program...but with would be easier. I teach at a private boarding school and I get to create my curriculum from scratch, teach whatever I want, the way I want...unlimited (within reason) resources - you can bet I'm not applying to PhD programs because I don't know what I want to be when I grow up, because if I am accepted I will be leaving an extremely cushy job, excellent benefits, and a VERY nice salary...but I'll be going towards my lifelong passions with more guidance and more criticism of what I am doing, which will make me a better scholar, writer and reader, and that is what I want. One way or the other, I will be a medievalist for the rest of my life. I would love to do it in a PhD program with other medievalists as mentors and colleagues...but I have done it for ten years more or less without that and gotten along just fine, if in lonely fashion for the most part.

I have to disagree with you that applying to more than 8 schools signifies that an applicant doesn't know what they're doing. I personally applied to 11 schools, each of which I could have seen myself at for one reason or another. The reality is that applying to less than 8 schools might be risky in this economic climate. I applied to 7 last year and was rejected across the board. So please don't assume that just because someone applied to quite a few programs it means that they aren't serious about their work. Also, how are you distinguishing between the serious applicants and the ones who have "'I don't really know what I want to be when I grow up' etched all over their lists"? Without knowing their subfield and the numerous other factors that lead a person to choose to apply to a school, how can you judge?

I get angry when people are snarky about the prestige of certain programs on the results page, but I think your anger is a bit misdirected here.

Also, I have no idea who on earth would consider a top 25 school a "safety." UNC-Chapel Hill is an excellent program, and not easy to get into from what I understand. If that's where you hope to end up, I wish you the best of luck!

[Pamphilia]

You know what makes me really angry, though? It's the fact that my first choice is many folks' safety. If you don't WANT to go to a program, don't apply. When I see someone with 8+ applications, I don't think "there's a person who knows what s/he wants in life" I think "that assh-le is probably going to take my spot and s/he clearly doesn't even want it." nine times out of ten, that person him or herself will tell you s/he "only applied there as a backup". That's really discouraging.

I wish everyone had the foresight to apply only to the schools s/he really wants to GO to, instead of just randomly applying to 8-10 of the top 25 English departments. I know that's generalizing - there are a lot of people here who have clearly done their homework and have very specific reasons for their choices. But there are an equal number of folks with "I don't really know what I want to be when I grow up" etched all over their lists - you know? I'm not trying to be hypercritical, but I do want to point out that for some of us, UNC-Chapel Hill is the best possible option

Dude, I really hope this doesn't sound mean or as if I'm picking on you, but this post (especially in the context of your other one about people "lying" about acceptances) is so cynical! I agree that some people probably are not taking this process as seriously as others, but I feel like they probably would not be "taking spots away" from serious and dedicated candidates. I don't know...I just think we should have a little more faith in our fellow applicants. Bitterness and mistrust will not help anyone's application, and will only make a person feel worse and possibly spread even more anxiety to other applicants.

I am truly sorry if this comes off as harsh or mean! You do make a lot of very good and well-articulated points. I just think cynicism won't help any of us. Let's be supportive! We can all use it.

I have to disagree with you that applying to more than 8 schools signifies that an applicant doesn't know what they're doing...The reality is that applying to less than 8 schools might be risky in this economic climate...please don't assume that just because someone applied to quite a few programs it means that they aren't serious about their work...

Also, I have no idea who on earth would consider a top 25 school a "safety." UNC-Chapel Hill is an excellent program, and not easy to get into from what I understand. If that's where you hope to end up, I wish you the best of luck!

Yes.

Edited February 18, 2010 by Pamphilia

[strokeofmidnight]

YES. I could have written this post myself. Every word, true, true, true. You know what makes me really angry, though? It's the fact that my first choice is many folks' safety. If you don't WANT to go to a program, don't apply. When I see someone with 8+ applications, I don't think "there's a person who knows what s/he wants in life" I think "that assh-le is probably going to take my spot and s/he clearly doesn't even want it." Nine times out of ten (OK, eight ;op), that person him or herself will tell you s/he "only applied there as a backup". That's really discouraging.

I wish everyone had the foresight to apply only to the schools s/he really wants to GO to, instead of just randomly applying to 8-10 of the top 25 English departments. I know that's generalizing - there are a lot of people here who have clearly done their homework and have very specific reasons for their choices. But there are an equal number of folks with "I don't really know what I want to be when I grow up" etched all over their lists - you know? I'm not trying to be hypercritical, but I do want to point out that for some of us, UNC-Chapel Hill is the best possible option (especially when we are medievalists/Celticists/ Arthurians and they have next-to-God-on-the-Celtic-scale Pat O'Neill and the soon-to-be-emeritus-but-he-could-still-work-with-you-on-your-dissertation-if-you-asked-him-nicely-Don Kennedy (a deity among medievalists).....and for others, it's just a top-25 school they applied to as a safety.

I agree with you that candidates really should research their programs and only apply to places where they would accept the offer (based on the preliminary, pre-visit info). That said, 10 seems a really arbitrary number. I would argue that it's impossible to set any ideal number (though there are ballpark figures that are more or less useful for certain applicants). For some of us, there are indeed 10 or 12 programs that are well-suited for our work. For others with less popular and more focused projects, 4 programs would be a stretch.

Though if its any consolation, I think those who apply strictly by the rankings, without taking the time to inform themselves of the program's particular strengths and weaknesses, are likely to be culled out anyway. Programs privilege fit--they want applicants well suited for their own strengths (or growth areas)...and who have clearly thought about their research trajectories. It's hard to fake fit, and the applicants who apply mindlessly certainly won't be apply to pull that off.

[Medievalmaniac]

Again, reminding those of you taking issue with my above-written generalization that I know I was generalizing...and that I know I'm rambling. But I also know that I have seen some of what I have talked about first hand all too often to not see that it is very real and very much a problem for those of us with extremely clear objectives and needs in terms of goals and preparation to meet them. It's not omnipresent, by any means - as I pointed out - but it IS there. In this very forum, we see people saying "well, yes, I got into X, Y and Z, but I really wanted S, and they didn't take me...so I don't think I'm going to take any of the offers I got, I'll wait and see what happens next year." Where's the sense in that? If you would not accept an offer from a program, don't apply. That requires maturity on an applicant's part - but if you have your heart set on one of three schools, and you know that, then don't waste your time and money - and the time and money of others, I might add - applying to programs you have no intention of actually going to if it comes down to it. There are a lot of people doing just that.

Not to pull an age card - because I am hoping my age doesn't become a factor in my own applications, and assuredly there are younger applicants far more qualified than I am for positions I have applied for. But my age - and my experiences as a teacher and a student for a decade - has also given me a lot to mull over on this subject. I'm not just sour graping, because I have no reason to sour grape - I am very, very lucky to be doing what I am doing, and will still be so even if I get rejected from all of my choices.

I'm not trying to be snarky or cynical....just being realistic, and basing my realism on the posts of people right here on this board.

That said, I hope everyone here gets into a school of his or her dreams and that everyone here gets that PhD and moves on to a great career in academia....I really do.

[TC3]

Also, I have no idea who on earth would consider a top 25 school a "safety." UNC-Chapel Hill is an excellent program, and not easy to get into from what I understand. If that's where you hope to end up, I wish you the best of luck!

Most who use this site are a privileged class among graduate studies. A cursory examination of the admissions results page shows that most postings regard top programs that most applicants cannot hope to access. We all have out anecdotes about this one person who got into an elite program even though they didn't come from an elite program, but in general there's still a ubiquitous subscription to the notion of "pedigree" among graduate programs.

I certainly understand the frustration, but also agree that programs such as UNC are beyond my reach because my BA is from a little-known state branch school. There are many reasons that a person doesn't attend an Ivy or Public Ivy for his/her undergraduate, and almost all of those reasons have nothing to do with the potential of the candidate. Despite the increased focus on social activism, English departments still exhibit a class snobbery when it comes to tiers and rankings.

It is a little hurtful when I see comments about these top programs being a "safety." It also shows a naivete concerning the current state of the market. I would not view *any* top-50 school as a "safety," considering that they receive hundreds of applications for less than a dozen spots. In terms of creative writing, I've heard of programs rejecting Stegner fellows. Pedigree does not account for how more and more qualified candidates are accepting positions at lower-ranked programs (and yet finding those programs to be just as good an experience as "top" programs). In the job market, we see more and more highly credentialed and professionalized graduates taking jobs at institutions that traditionally were the recourse for those who "didn't do much" during their doctoral program (e.g. community college, liberal arts and teaching college).

Again, though, the user of this site seem to be disproportionately representative of the class of applicants who, for whatever reason, are many a department's darling. I wish more "common folk" (as common as doctoral applicants to ranked research universities can be) used this forum.

[strokeofmidnight]

Most who use this site are a privileged class among graduate studies. A cursory examination of the admissions results page shows that most postings regard top programs that most applicants cannot hope to access. We all have out anecdotes about this one person who got into an elite program even though they didn't come from an elite program, but in general there's still a ubiquitous subscription to the notion of "pedigree" among graduate programs.

I certainly understand the frustration, but also agree that programs such as UNC are beyond my reach because my BA is from a little-known state branch school. There are many reasons that a person doesn't attend an Ivy or Public Ivy for his/her undergraduate, and almost all of those reasons have nothing to do with the potential of the candidate. Despite the increased focus on social activism, English departments still exhibit a class snobbery when it comes to tiers and rankings.

It is a little hurtful when I see comments about these top programs being a "safety." It also shows a naivete concerning the current state of the market. I would not view *any* top-50 school as a "safety," considering that they receive hundreds of applications for less than a dozen spots. In terms of creative writing, I've heard of programs rejecting Stegner fellows. Pedigree does not account for how more and more qualified candidates are accepting positions at lower-ranked programs (and yet finding those programs to be just as good an experience as "top" programs). In the job market, we see more and more highly credentialed and professionalized graduates taking jobs at institutions that traditionally were the recourse for those who "didn't do much" during their doctoral program (e.g. community college, liberal arts and teaching college).

Again, though, the user of this site seem to be disproportionately representative of the class of applicants who, for whatever reason, are many a department's darling. I wish more "common folk" (as common as doctoral applicants to ranked research universities can be) used this forum.

Is it possible that the causation--at least in some instances--might be reversed here? That if candidates on these forums do tend to have strong seasons, it's because the connections and insights they learn from these forum (and others like it) help them become better informed about the process and consequently, more successful applicants? Along the same lines, as I argued in the stats forums, the numbers (and undergrad alma maters) that people tend to feel comfortable disclosing are higher/better known not necessarily because they're representative of the board, but because people who feel confident about these aspects of their apps are more likely to post that info?

And frankly, I HAVE seen applicants from small, unknown undergraduate (and/or MA) programs do extremely well. There's no doubt that they may be at a disadvantage: a smaller program might not provide all the resources, attention, and opportunities that allows an applicant to reach his or her scholarly potential...but everything in my experience has suggested that this isn't an impossible obstacle. From what I can tell, these applicants take every opportunity available during their undergrad years, AND then some. They continue to study and learn on their own...which may be more difficult, but is often more rewarding. Without the focused advising/feedback that is more readily available to their peers at better-known, better-ranked programs, it sometimes takes these students longer to actually attain that level of scholarship that will make them competitive in the applicant pool. (But then again, the same can be said of their Ivy league peers who didn't *quite* take advantage of their abundant opportunities and resources during their time in college).

It isn't about snobbery or class prestige. From what I've seen in 3 rounds of applications, the students who get in are the ones who are well-prepared, regardless of where they obtained their BA's. But certainly, a BA-holder from Harvard or Yale has more opportunities to become well-prepared than a student from Podunk U. Then again, every year, I see a few outstanding Podunk U applicants beat out the Ivy's. While I'm sure that there are certain foddy-duddy elitist professors on ad-comms, most, I believe, truly looks for the best applicants that can complement the department's strengths.

Edited February 18, 2010 by strokeofmidnight

[Branwen daughter of Llyr]

You know what makes me really angry, though? It's the fact that my first choice is many folks' safety. If you don't WANT to go to a program, don't apply. When I see someone with 8+ applications, I don't think "there's a person who knows what s/he wants in life" I think "that assh-le is probably going to take my spot and s/he clearly doesn't even want it." Nine times out of ten (OK, eight ;op), that person him or herself will tell you s/he "only applied there as a backup". That's really discouraging.

I wish everyone had the foresight to apply only to the schools s/he really wants to GO to, instead of just randomly applying to 8-10 of the top 25 English departments. I know that's generalizing - there are a lot of people here who have clearly done their homework and have very specific reasons for their choices. But there are an equal number of folks with "I don't really know what I want to be when I grow up" etched all over their lists - you know? I'm not trying to be hypercritical, but I do want to point out that for some of us, UNC-Chapel Hill is the best possible option (especially when we are medievalists/Celticists/ Arthurians and they have next-to-God-on-the-Celtic-scale Pat O'Neill and the soon-to-be-emeritus-but-he-could-still-work-with-you-on-your-dissertation-if-you-asked-him-nicely-Don Kennedy (a deity among medievalists).....and for others, it's just a top-25 school they applied to as a safety.

In the meanwhile, for myself, I am dying to do more advanced research, to study Old Irish, Anglo-Norman and Anglo-Saxon, and to write my articles and book(s). I'll certainly do this with or without a program...but with would be easier. I teach at a private boarding school and I get to create my curriculum from scratch, teach whatever I want, the way I want...unlimited (within reason) resources - you can bet I'm not applying to PhD programs because I don't know what I want to be when I grow up, or that I'm not really sure but I THINK this is what I want - because if I am accepted, I will be leaving an extremely cushy job, excellent benefits, and a VERY nice salary...but I'll be going towards my lifelong passions with more guidance and more criticism of what I am doing, which will make me a better scholar, writer and reader, and that is what I want. One way or the other, I will be a medievalist for the rest of my life. I would love to do it in a PhD program with other medievalists as mentors and colleagues...but I have done it for ten years more or less without that and gotten along just fine, if in lonely fashion for the most part.

Oh boy - have we touched a nerve??

For the next round I'm probably applying to appx 10 schools (give or take a few) - but all will have strong medieval departments and at least ONE prof that can work with me on contemporary fantasy / children's lit. I doubt I'll end up with only one advisor, I'll probably need a couple, or even three, since I want to incorporate Narrative theory, "fabulist" psych theory, and incorporate two time periods. Since the app round this year was so hurried for me, I didn't really have time to research schools and funding, I wasn't totally focused on my field (as I'm becoming now, a lot due to gradcafe, btw), and of course I would go to ANY program that accepted me this year (you don't turn down Yale, Cornell, or UVA), but it looks like there are better fits for me out there (barring Cornell, which is perfect).

UNC as a safety school?? I don't know who's applying to UNC as a safety school - it's so hard to get in, especially if you're out of state.

I will agree with others writing before me that it's a bit of a generalization to say that anyone that applied to 8+ schools is just fishing. I know there are some, but everyone I've talked to here, even when applying to quite a few schools, chose the schools for fit - of course some were a better fit than others, but in this economy, you have to be just a tad flexible. Let's put it this way - if by some miracle Yale / Brown decides they want me this year, you think I'm going to bitch about the small medieval concentration? Nope. I'll move my focus to "fairies in the Renaissance" concentrate a bit more on early modern vs. contemporary fantasy / children's lit, and work with what I have (and hope that I get to work with Harold Bloom).

I suppose all we can do is trust the adcoms to see through the "i don't know what i want to do yet" applications, and reject ppl that aren't a good fit. From what I've seen on the boards, it actually happens quite often - a lot of the ppl write in their comments "oh well, it wasn't a very good fit".

And yes, UNC is most definitely on my long list of next year, as are several other programs.

[Pamphilia]

I suppose all we can do is trust the adcoms to see through the "i don't know what i want to do yet" applications, and reject ppl that aren't a good fit. From what I've seen on the boards, it actually happens quite often - a lot of the ppl write in their comments "oh well, it wasn't a very good fit".

And yes, UNC is most definitely on my long list of next year, as are several other programs.

Yes. Personal note here: I was one of those people who posted an "Oh well, it wasn't a very good fit" on the results search. UCLA is, on paper (or at least on the website) perfect for me. I've relied heavily on work that their faculty have published in the past, as well. I got really excited about it and decided to apply. It was only after some months of communicating with several faculty members that I realized it really wasn't a good fit--professors were not (or no longer) looking at the kinds of texts I hope to study, they were not (or no longer) asking the questions I pursue, they were not (or, in several cases, no longer) pursuing the same avenues of inquiry and methodology I follow. Still, by the time I really figured this out, it was early December and I'd already completed their pain-in-the-ass application, which was on my desk waiting to go to the post office. So, I thought, "Screw it, I've put in three months of work here." I applied anyway, and was [rightfully] rejected. They saw through the fact that I wasn't a good fit. And it's true, I probably would have turned them down if I were admitted, but only because I've already been accepted to a couple of other programs that are *excellent* fits for me (including one of my very top choices, Carolina). Still, if UCLA were the only school I'd been accepted to, I'd have happily attended. It may have been *more* difficult for me to engage with the kind of questions I'd like, but I think could piece together a dissertation committee to help me out of their faculty. It was just be a little less organic for me there.

But, there you go. Applicants who don't fit probably won't get in.

[lifealive]

Most who use this site are a privileged class among graduate studies. A cursory examination of the admissions results page shows that most postings regard top programs that most applicants cannot hope to access. We all have out anecdotes about this one person who got into an elite program even though they didn't come from an elite program, but in general there's still a ubiquitous subscription to the notion of "pedigree" among graduate programs.

I certainly understand the frustration, but also agree that programs such as UNC are beyond my reach because my BA is from a little-known state branch school. There are many reasons that a person doesn't attend an Ivy or Public Ivy for his/her undergraduate, and almost all of those reasons have nothing to do with the potential of the candidate. Despite the increased focus on social activism, English departments still exhibit a class snobbery when it comes to tiers and rankings.

It is a little hurtful when I see comments about these top programs being a "safety." It also shows a naivete concerning the current state of the market. I would not view *any* top-50 school as a "safety," considering that they receive hundreds of applications for less than a dozen spots. In terms of creative writing, I've heard of programs rejecting Stegner fellows. Pedigree does not account for how more and more qualified candidates are accepting positions at lower-ranked programs (and yet finding those programs to be just as good an experience as "top" programs). In the job market, we see more and more highly credentialed and professionalized graduates taking jobs at institutions that traditionally were the recourse for those who "didn't do much" during their doctoral program (e.g. community college, liberal arts and teaching college).

Again, though, the user of this site seem to be disproportionately representative of the class of applicants who, for whatever reason, are many a department's darling. I wish more "common folk" (as common as doctoral applicants to ranked research universities can be) used this forum.

I wish there was a way we could talk more honestly about this without being called out as "sour grapes." I would personally love to know the importance of the name on the diploma, and to what extent adcoms deliberately perpetuate this classed cycle of haves and have-mores (which continues into the job market stage, of course, and then into the next generation. And on and on.). To be blunt, I believe that background matters. I know there's a lot of anecdotal evidence to the contrary--"I know somebody from Crackerjack State who just wrote a really good writing sample and got into Harvard"--but I've also seen tons of anecdotal evidence pointing the other way--people with elite diplomas and low GPAs who very easily walk into top-5 programs. I seriously have to question the notion that this process is ONLY about talent, hard work, and making the best of your own resources. I think it's incredibly naive and potentially dishonest to perpetuate this belief that the awesomeness of your application is what gets you into graduate school, and that background doesn't matter.

The problem is that you can't really claim causation--people who come from elite backgrounds are likely smart to begin with and have had access to the best preparation, so there's that. Then there's just the quirky nature of each individual admissions committee, and each committee member. But when my professors steered me towards programs, they didn't exactly mince words about someone from my background getting into a top school. Like you, I was told that certain programs were simply "out of reach." (And no, I did not have a low GPA or GRE or anything that would have immediately precluded me from admission.) I applied to top schools anyway and was rejected, naturally. I clawed my way into a fairly decent program (one that others here have called a "safety," but it was a dream come true for me), and now I'm just clawing my way towards my dissertation stage, trying to publish, trying to do anything so that I don't end up teaching in a bog. That's the other thing--I had the "pleasure" of sitting in on a hiring committee lately, only to see explictly spelled out what I always suspected: R1 schools only consider certain kinds of candidates, and those certain kinds of candidates come from a select few schools (duh). After seeing this elitism spelled out so transparently in the hiring process, it's difficult for me to believe that it doesn't exist--at least subliminally--in the admissions process.

I think you can make it into top school from a low-ranked one, sure. Just as you can get "hired up" or make a "lateral move." It happens once in a while.

[TC3]

I wish there was a way we could talk more honestly about this without being called out as "sour grapes." I would personally love to know the importance of the name on the diploma, and to what extent adcoms deliberately perpetuate this classed cycle of haves and have-mores (which continues into the job market stage, of course, and then into the next generation. And on and on.). To be blunt, I believe that background matters.

... ... ...

That's the other thing--I had the "pleasure" of sitting in on a hiring committee lately, only to see explictly spelled out what I always suspected: R1 schools only consider certain kinds of candidates, and those certain kinds of candidates come from a select few schools (duh). After seeing this elitism spelled out so transparently in the hiring process, it's difficult for me to believe that it doesn't exist--at least subliminally--in the admissions process.

Yes, I think that the "sour grapes" indictment is too dismissive, and typically is leveled by those who don't have a problem getting into programs, anecdotal evidence aside.

In terms of more hard evidence, just go to any major research university's English faculty page. Look at where they all received their graduate degrees. Make it a drinking game. First variation: a shot of tequila for every degree from a top-30 program. Whoever is the last to pass out wins. Second variation: a shot of tequila for every degree *not* from a top-30 program. Whoever is the *first* to pass out wins.