Looking back, how do you feel about your undergrad experience?

[Gl0rfindel]

Hi! I'd be really curious to hear people's reflections on their undergrad training in literature and how it prepared them for graduate study.

I graduated with a BA a few weeks ago and am just starting to dive into the grad school application process. However, in reading about people's research interests and theoretical lenses, I'm worried that my undergrad department wasn't particularly... rigorous. We had one required theory course, but in class rarely went much deeper than close readings. My school has a very strong social justice culture, so most people professed to use gender or postcolonial theory, but at least in class discussions, this usually just meant complaining how a certain depiction of race or gender was "problematic." Often, professors were mainly discussion facilitators, instead of lecturers. In practice this meant most class time was spent listening to other students discussing the text to get the required participation points, instead of listening to someone deeply learned in the field. Professors have encouraged me to apply to top 20 graduate schools, but I'm not sure I have a very broad knowledge of literature. I received an A+ on my thesis, but I don't think I raised any particularly interesting questions about the texts.

I honestly don't want to complain: I had a great four years, and I made close personal relationships with some fantastic scholars who have volunteered to write LoRs for me. Maybe this is just par for the course for undergrad, with true rigor and theoretical breadth coming later. But I'd be very interested to hear other people's reflections on their undergrad experience: how it went, how it prepared them, where they think their education might have been lacking. 

 

[rising_star]

1 hour ago, Gl0rfindel said:

Often, professors were mainly discussion facilitators, instead of lecturers. In practice this meant most class time was spent listening to other students discussing the text to get the required participation points, instead of listening to someone deeply learned in the field. Professors have encouraged me to apply to top 20 graduate schools, but I'm not sure I have a very broad knowledge of literature. I received an A+ on my thesis, but I don't think I raised any particularly interesting questions about the texts.

I think your undergrad experience is pretty common. Discussing texts is how people learn about them. I sincerely doubt that your characterization about participation points vs "someone deeply learned in the field" is true of your classes. Professors have specific goals in mind when leading a discussion and typically guide students toward reaching those, even when you (or the other students) may not see it. If you truly wanted to spend time learning from the faculty and hearing them pontificate about a particular text, you can and should have gone to office hours to engage in a more nuanced discussion.

More broadly, there's a clear sense in your post that despite your statement that you don't want to complain, that's exactly what you're doing. You obviously don't trust the faculty you've learned from, even as you praise them as "some fantastic scholars", because you don't trust their judgment about where you should apply or their ability to evaluate your senior thesis. In that case, I guess I wonder why you think they're fantastic and want their LoRs if you also don't think they know anything about your potential or grad school options.

[Dr. Old Bill]

I agree completely with @rising_star. Your experience sounds quite typical.

One thing you have to keep in mind is that as an undergraduate, many of your classmates will be stopping at the B.A., many of them will just be taking literature / theory courses to fulfill requirements, many will be taking courses because they work with their schedule, and many will only be in college because they feel they have to be. In other words, there's always going to be a blend of interested and disinterested folks (and subcategories of both). Grad school is typically a bit better in this regard...though you'll still have people in your classes for different reasons (i.e. there's still req-fulfilling in the mix). As for the tenor of classes, some professors like to hold court and spend most of a session imparting their own considerable knowledge...but most prefer to foster a lot of class discussion. There was one professor I took twice who would have us read five or six texts for a class, then when the class session started, would just begin by saying "So what did you think about [text]?" He'd interject from time to time, but the emphasis was clearly on class discussion. This worked very well in the first course I took with him, but not so well in the second.

But getting back to your original post, I felt prepared for grad school after my undergraduate education, but there was also a learning curve...which was to be expected. Learning how to consistently write graduate-level papers and do graduate-level research takes a bit of getting used to...and it's hard to get that experience outside of grad school itself.

[anxiousphd]

17 hours ago, Gl0rfindel said:

Hi! I'd be really curious to hear people's reflections on their undergrad training in literature and how it prepared them for graduate study.

I graduated with a BA a few weeks ago and am just starting to dive into the grad school application process. However, in reading about people's research interests and theoretical lenses, I'm worried that my undergrad department wasn't particularly... rigorous. We had one required theory course, but in class rarely went much deeper than close readings. My school has a very strong social justice culture, so most people professed to use gender or postcolonial theory, but at least in class discussions, this usually just meant complaining how a certain depiction of race or gender was "problematic." Often, professors were mainly discussion facilitators, instead of lecturers. In practice this meant most class time was spent listening to other students discussing the text to get the required participation points, instead of listening to someone deeply learned in the field. Professors have encouraged me to apply to top 20 graduate schools, but I'm not sure I have a very broad knowledge of literature. I received an A+ on my thesis, but I don't think I raised any particularly interesting questions about the texts.

I honestly don't want to complain: I had a great four years, and I made close personal relationships with some fantastic scholars who have volunteered to write LoRs for me. Maybe this is just par for the course for undergrad, with true rigor and theoretical breadth coming later. But I'd be very interested to hear other people's reflections on their undergrad experience: how it went, how it prepared them, where they think their education might have been lacking. 

 

I completed my undergrad in a department that was not at all rigorous. I was generally able to get away with doing my work last minute, skipping some or all of the reading, and not paying much attention in class. I still made almost all 'A's. There were a few courses (literary theory, gender and sexuality in lit) which challenged me, and I would not have been at all prepared for grad school without them. Other than my undergrad honors thesis, which was roughly 25 pages, I had never written a paper longer than 10 pages. I got really lucky that I managed to become self-motivated during my last two years of undergrad, because I could have easily gone all four years without becoming much of a scholar.

My MA program was the first time I ever really had to work at school. My first year, I read an average of 1,000 pages a week. I wrote papers three times as long as what I wrote in undergrad. I was unprepared for the work-as-you-go expectation of grad school, so I wrote most of my final papers in the span of four days during the first semester. They (mostly) turned out pretty good, but after that semester I learned to start working on papers much earlier. After the first semester, I was used to the rigor of graduate school and it's been pretty smooth sailing since then.

What I'm getting at here is that if your undergrad was anything like mine, your first semester might be rough. You may also be best to start at an MA program instead of going direct to PhD, so your transition isn't as difficult. But ultimately, if you did well in undergrad and are prepared to work a lot harder, then you will be absolutely fine in grad school. 

Also, so far most of my graduate courses have been discussion-based, but it's been a lot more interesting and rewarding in grad school when you can assume everyone did the reading and has something useful to contribute. 

[ExponentialDecay]

I wouldn't dismiss concerns about departmental rigor as mere undergrad complaining. 

When it comes to grad school acceptance, unless the person whose advice you are soliciting has the power to accept or deny your application to a program, what they can give you is just an opinion, and some opinions are certainly more informed than others. It's fair to assume that a professor at a top PhD-granting program knows the profile of a typical admitted student and can give you an accurate assessment, even if you're not applying to their program specifically; the further you get from "top PhD-granting program", the less that assumption holds. Professors at top SLACs may have excellent standing in the discipline and may regularly send their undergrads to these coveted programs, but they don't have recent first-hand experience of admitting PhD students. They don't know what the competition is like. At the majority of US institutions, which may send an undergrad to a top PhD once every decade, if at all, professors have even less experience. You can't expect them to cogently reason from a sample of one. This is not to say that OP shouldn't apply to the T20 (they should if they want an academic job). That's to say that it is possible that OP's professors *don't* know how competitive they are.

As for the thesis, that is another valid concern. Few schools have enough strong faculty to supervise the great variety of dissertation topics that students come up with. That is, a professor can monitor that the research is done properly, the argument is cogent, and similar technical things, but if they're not a subject matter expert, they're not going to know whether you raised questions that are compelling in the context of the literature, not least because they can't evaluate if you surveyed the literature properly.

The only thing I wouldn't worry about is discussion-heavy classes and OP's (implied) disdain for those of their classmates that they perceive as not having done enough work. Lower and intermediate level classes may have a heavy lecture component, but upper-level stuff (seminars) is almost always done in a discussion format, at all schools I am familiar with, because its major goal is to teach you to do your own research and construct your own arguments (the difference, I assume, being that, at stronger programs, the goal is to assess your ability to do research and construct arguments, as you will have been doing that in your lower-level classes already), and because it's assumed that you're mature enough to have more control over your learning. This is the crucial part. The reality is, you can scrape by in any major, at any school. If you're content doing the minimum to stay afloat, you shouldn't be going to grad school. If you feel that you haven't been challenged, find ways to challenge yourself. 

Try to get someone who is an expert in your specific area to take a look at your diss (it's a longshot, sure...). They'll be able to tell you if it's good work content-wise.

[a_sort_of_fractious_angel]

19 hours ago, Gl0rfindel said:

Hi! I'd be really curious to hear people's reflections on their undergrad training in literature and how it prepared them for graduate study.

I graduated with a BA a few weeks ago and am just starting to dive into the grad school application process. However, in reading about people's research interests and theoretical lenses, I'm worried that my undergrad department wasn't particularly... rigorous. We had one required theory course, but in class rarely went much deeper than close readings. My school has a very strong social justice culture, so most people professed to use gender or postcolonial theory, but at least in class discussions, this usually just meant complaining how a certain depiction of race or gender was "problematic." Often, professors were mainly discussion facilitators, instead of lecturers. In practice this meant most class time was spent listening to other students discussing the text to get the required participation points, instead of listening to someone deeply learned in the field. Professors have encouraged me to apply to top 20 graduate schools, but I'm not sure I have a very broad knowledge of literature. I received an A+ on my thesis, but I don't think I raised any particularly interesting questions about the texts.

I honestly don't want to complain: I had a great four years, and I made close personal relationships with some fantastic scholars who have volunteered to write LoRs for me. Maybe this is just par for the course for undergrad, with true rigor and theoretical breadth coming later. But I'd be very interested to hear other people's reflections on their undergrad experience: how it went, how it prepared them, where they think their education might have been lacking. 

 

My undergrad was comparable to yours, I think - I got my BA at at small, undergrad-oriented university (we had a handful of MA programs, including a small one in English, but no PhDs) and all but one or two of my English courses were 100% discussion-based. Those experiences were useful during my MA, as those classes were also primarily discussion-based. Speaking articulately (and sometimes on the fly) in a group setting is (arguably) a requirement for successful graduate work. 

In terms of breadth and depth and whatnot, my undergrad wasn't grad-level rigorous and the "jump" during my MA was a little rough, but it wasn't any fault of my department - I think a lot of universities demand that undergrad students fill those first 2 years with requirements and that leaves less time to get that breadth you're looking for. 

My advice would be to continue to speak with those professors - they don't have to offer to write you LORs and if they are, that's great. You might also express your concerns to them - I'm sure they can recommend some seminal texts in your areas of interest that you could read and then discuss with them later.

It's possible (and normal) that your sense of perhaps not being unprepared enough is "right" - I wasn't, and while my BA professors strongly supported my PhD applications, I didn't get in my first try. I didn't get in my second try either, however, even after far more rigorous MA coursework at a well-known department. 

All to say that coursework isn't everything, especially if one cannot take that knowledge and use it to produce original and interesting thought (which is why those discussions come in handy!) But if you have profs in your corner who are supportive, that is (almost) everything because they can lead you toward work you may not know about and they can read your responses and thoughts. 

[EAstudies]

I don't know how it would be common for schools to just offer one theory class. I've never been to other undergraduate schools, but I've always thought reading and discussing with a minimal attention to theories is a high school type of literature class. But I guess it is a lot more common than I thought. I don't want to sound conceited, but this is how my undergraduate experience has been as a comparative literature and philosophy double major:

Even though I was not an English literature major, I took a lot of theory courses from the English department as a comparative literature student. My school doesn't necessarily focus on critical theory, but we do have famous theorists in their respective fields (e.g., queer theory, Lacanian psychoanalysis, postcolonialism, etc.) and I was especially interested in the theoretical part of literature. The English program here offers quite a few theory courses for undergraduate literature students every semester, and although English department doesn't have this requirement, my department requires students to take a theory survey course as 101. It's mostly going over the Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism and some other texts picked by the professor, but I think it is a pretty solid overview for an undergrad student. Of course, higher level courses focus on a specific field in critical theories, and I've been mostly taking psychoanalysis and deconstructionism. I imagine these courses wouldn't go as deep and comprehensive as graduate level courses, but I'm still pretty satisfied with my coursework. Plus, my school is a research university with a small graduate population, so I could get ample attention from the professors who are active in research and are the leading figures in their fields. And for these classes, there weren't students who weren't particularly disinterested since it was not required for them to take these. And my school is very supportive of independent studies, so I'll be doing 2.5 years of independent work (honors thesis + 2 semesters of independent studies + 1 summer research scholarship) for one topic. So I do feel like I have some depth in this specific area, enough to start the graduate work.

Okay, this now sounds like a real bragging. I might delete this later since it makes me feel silly. But my point is that it is possible that your school's program was particularly rigorous even though it may be a lot more common than I thought. It is possible for you to meet undergraduate students who have had a lot more exposure to theories when you go to grad school. At least, my friend who went to another undergraduate has a very similar experience with me. But I don't think there's any reason to be intimidated or worried. Over the summer, just go over the Norton Anthology. It's a fascinating theory book for beginners, and it's actually pretty hard to meet anyone who hasn't heard how good it is. The first two years of graduate study (at least in many comparative literature programs) start with coursework. You will have time to learn theories in depth. Also, even if a student is from the school that has a strong theoretical base for undergraduate students, that doesn't necessarily mean he or she is well-covered. For one, as I said earlier, my school offered a breadth of theory courses but they were not requirements. Also, my school regularly had theorists coming over and holding a lecture last year (like Alain Badiou and Judith Butler) and the vast majority of the audience was graduate students. I only saw very few undergraduates in any of the lectures. So undergraduate students from the schools that have lots of opportunities to study critical theories aren't necessarily better informed...unless they did take advantage of it. My friend who had a similar experience with me, too, actively took advantage of his school offered. (And now that I'm seeing other posts, he and I did go to rigorous public and private institutions in Cali and New England, so our situation might not be too common compared to the general population...)

Edited July 7, 2017 by complit

[urbanfarmer]

My undergrad experience was also very not-rigorous... due to a combination of the nature of undergraduate classes, and me being very young and doing only what I had to do to get good grades, not digging deeper at all. 

That in mind, I chose to do an M.A. first, which was great for me. The first semester was a bit of a shock in terms of what was required, but it was sort of a boot-camp to get me ready for a PhD program (although I took several years off in between starting each of my degrees). If you feel unsure about your readiness for graduate work, an M.A. is a great idea. It can possibly make you a stronger candidate, while giving you the time to make sure you're prepared for (and want to be in) a PhD program. 

[Dr. Old Bill]

9 minutes ago, urbanfarmer said:

 

That in mind, I chose to do an M.A. first, which was great for me. The first semester was a bit of a shock in terms of what was required, but it was sort of a boot-camp to get me ready for a PhD program (although I took several years off in between starting each of my degrees). If you feel unsure about your readiness for graduate work, an M.A. is a great idea. It can possibly make you a stronger candidate, while giving you the time to make sure you're prepared for (and want to be in) a PhD program. 

Fellow OSUer and long-time GCer @Ramus and I had this exact same conversation over coffee yesterday: we're both extremely grateful to have gone through an M.A. program first. In his case, it was a choice between an M.A. at a strong program and a Ph.D. at a lesser (but still decent) program, and in my case it was my best and only option (heh), which initially felt like a consolation prize since I had only applied to Ph.D. programs, but proved to be an enormous boon. Simply put, the M.A. is a bridge: you get the grad school experience (rigorous courses, high workload, deeper scholarship etc.), without the long-term expectations. Most of what you do in an M.A. is coursework, sometimes with a lengthy thesis, and sometimes with a shorter Capstone project. In other words, the program is more contained and compact. For me, having the M.A. experience taught me how to do good research -- real, honest-to-goodness academic research that delved into contemporary scholarship. This just didn't happen at the undergraduate level, and had I jumped straight from B.A. to Ph.D. (as I had intended), I'm sure I would have eventually found my footing and made out alright...but the learning curve, combined with the weight of expectations would have made the transition far more challenging. And I say this as a "non-traditional" student with a lot of work and life experience under his belt (read: I'm good at adapting to new situations).

All of this is to say that while a large number of wonderful people (I'm thinking here of the "ghosts of GC past") have excelled when making the jump from B.A. to Ph.D., my own experience, combined with the experience of several others I have talked about it with, suggests that getting the M.A. first will generally strengthen you and make you a better scholar.

[klader]

I'm in comp/rhet, but my undergrad program was basically designed like a mini-MA program and I got so much out of it. I really enjoyed my time there and am very grateful. I learned things in undergrad that I'm learning again in my MA courses, and I got research and conference experience from working in the writing center, too. Gave me a great foundation to build on. 

I'm actually specializing in some of the same things my undergrad professors specialize in, and it's awesome because they're some of the leading scholars/experts and they're only a phone call away. They continue to mentor me and have been a great help to me by looking over conference paper drafts, letting me interview them for projects, offering to look over my PhD app materials, introducing me to people at conferences, alerting me of opportunities in the field, etc. 

Ah, I suppose I am just really nostalgic and happy with my undergrad experience. I owe my professors a lot for their continuous support and encouragement. I realize this isn't necessarily the norm, so I'm very appreciative. 

Schooling gets harder every time you go up a level, so it's understandable to feel insecure once you get to the next level. Despite all my preparation and support,  I finished my first week of grad school and cried because I didn't think I was good enough. There's a learning curve, for sure, but you'll be able to navigate it and adjust. 

Honestly, I almost wish I had FAILED more in undergrad. I wish my profs had been harder on me, because it really hurt when I got my first paper back marked up in all red. I know I have a lot to learn, of course, but I wish I had been prepared for how harsh it can be sometimes.

Edited July 10, 2017 by klader