MA vs. PhD

[subzoo]

Are PhD programs less inclined to accept applicants who only have their BA, no master's degree? Are BAs generally supposed to apply to master's programs?

[hadunc]

Are PhD programs less inclined to accept applicants who only have their BA, no master's degree? Are BAs generally supposed to apply to master's programs?

Yes and no. Some schools prefer students with MAs, some prefer BAs. A lot of people with BAs apply directly to PhDs, and many apply to a mix of both. But BAs certainly aren't "supposed" to only apply to MA programs.

[Pamphilia]

Are PhD programs less inclined to accept applicants who only have their BA, no master's degree? Are BAs generally supposed to apply to master's programs?

This is a really contentious topic in English (I presume you're talking about English; my apologies if not). I realize there are people with strong opinions on both sides of the issue and I'm not experienced enough yet in academe to give you my own opinion on the matter. But I will tell you my own experience: my undergrad mentors *strongly* advised against me getting a masters before applying to the PhD (or rather, an MA/PhD program). There are people who will tell you that their MAs are exactly the thing that got them into their dream programs, and I have no doubt that this is absolutely true in many cases. Still, the professionals I know and trust told me that it would be much harder to get into a PhD program with an MA. Personally I have had decent success this season without an MA. Would I have done better with one? I don't know.

This is just one side of the debate, and I'm not trying to inflame anyone. As I said I really have no idea either way at this point. I, personally, have just been advised against pursuing an MA first.

Edited February 20, 2010 by Pamphilia

[Aquinaplatostotlestine]

Like Pamphilia, I was also that it was better to apply directly to a PhD program rather than pick up a terminal M.A.; all of my applications that round, however, were rejected. To make a long story short, I ended up getting an M.A. in English Literature at a State university. Once I got over the crash my ego suffered (after all, I don't think anyone really dreams of getting an M.A. at a school no one has ever heard of), the experience turned out to be the best academic one of my life. Because of how tight jobs are/were, the professors at this school (or at least the ones I worked with) were all Ivy league graduates. Through their expertise and continual pushing I was able to get a publication in a peer-reviewed journal, present in a few conferences, and grow tremendously as a writer and as a scholar. This time around, I've been much more successful in my applications and I have no doubt that my M.A. is a part of that. Looking back, I've realized that had I jumped immediately into a PhD program I probably wouldn't have been ready for it. But that's just my experience. Something else that's interesting, though, is that I've switched fields: my M.A. was in English, the PhD I'm going to pursue will be in Comparative Lit. One final thing: at most schools I don't think having an M.A. will hurt you (and may in fact help), but my guess is that things like "fit," your SOP, writing sample, and LOR's will be much more important to a committee than having that extra suitable for framing piece of paper.

Cheers!

[Str2T]

Are PhD programs less inclined to accept applicants who only have their BA, no master's degree? Are BAs generally supposed to apply to master's programs?

I think it also depends on where you feel you are at as a student. There are plenty of MA programs that are not "terminal" (focused on community college teaching and publishing industry) and are intended to prepare you for entrance into a PhD program. Personally, I did not feel ready or competitive enough to apply for PhD programs after graduating with a BA in English from a private liberal arts college. Instead, I followed my interests into an MFA program in Creative Writing at a state school (well known, however, do to the limited options for graduate study in the state). While earning my MFA, I have had the opportunity to take a couple graduate-level English seminar courses in addition to my CW coursework, teach freshman Composition and Intro to Creative Writing as instructor of record and intern in 100-level lit survey courses, publish an article with a faculty member in a peer-reviewed journal, present at multiple conferences (at no cost to me), and mentor new teaching assistants. I feel these opportunities have made me a more competitive PhD candidate, but time will tell as the acceptances and rejections roll in.

[subzoo]

I think it also depends on where you feel you are at as a student. There are plenty of MA programs that are not "terminal" (focused on community college teaching and publishing industry) and are intended to prepare you for entrance into a PhD program. Personally, I did not feel ready or competitive enough to apply for PhD programs after graduating with a BA in English from a private liberal arts college. Instead, I followed my interests into an MFA program in Creative Writing at a state school (well known, however, do to the limited options for graduate study in the state). While earning my MFA, I have had the opportunity to take a couple graduate-level English seminar courses in addition to my CW coursework, teach freshman Composition and Intro to Creative Writing as instructor of record and intern in 100-level lit survey courses, publish an article with a faculty member in a peer-reviewed journal, present at multiple conferences (at no cost to me), and mentor new teaching assistants. I feel these opportunities have made me a more competitive PhD candidate, but time will tell as the acceptances and rejections roll in.

I hear what you're saying, but all of those things sound so boring and petty to me. I just want to study write about and teach literature - I hate that I'm considered unqualified to do so until I've accumulated all of these stupid little accolades. It's like the old argument about whether anyone can really learn how to be a writer; I look at the study of literature as pretty similar to writing, which is to say, I don't think it's just some job that you learn how to do, but rather a kind of calling that you just do. But maybe I'm just bitter because I've never published and never presented at any conferences - and for that matter wouldn't be caught dead going to a conference on literature - much better to just read or write, or better yet just live.

... I'm not saying all this to criticize you; your answer makes perfect sense and I'll probably end up scrounging those qualifications myself. I'm just wondering whether anyone else feels this way - feels alienated by the business-like attitude of all these so-called lovers of literature. Alienated by the fact that all these English department people sound exactly like the finance department people and the psychology department people etc.

[hadunc]

I hear what you're saying, but all of those things sound so boring and petty to me. I just want to study write about and teach literature - I hate that I'm considered unqualified to do so until I've accumulated all of these stupid little accolades. It's like the old argument about whether anyone can really learn how to be a writer; I look at the study of literature as pretty similar to writing, which is to say, I don't think it's just some job that you learn how to do, but rather a kind of calling that you just do. But maybe I'm just bitter because I've never published and never presented at any conferences - and for that matter wouldn't be caught dead going to a conference on literature - much better to just read or write, or better yet just live.

... I'm not saying all this to criticize you; your answer makes perfect sense and I'll probably end up scrounging those qualifications myself. I'm just wondering whether anyone else feels this way - feels alienated by the business-like attitude of all these so-called lovers of literature. Alienated by the fact that all these English department people sound exactly like the finance department people and the psychology department people etc.

If you think that post sounds "boring and petty," I'm not sure what you expect to get out of grad school. It's not all about reading and writing, it's about engaging in conversation with your colleagues, sharing ideas, research, etc. I don't know why you "wouldn't be caught dead going to a conference on literature," and statements like that are not going to make you any friends here. How exactly do you expect to keep up with what's going on in your field and network with your fellow academics? I don't mean to be harsh, but I think you should seriously give some thought as to whether this is the right career for you.

[subzoo]

If you think that post sounds "boring and petty," I'm not sure what you expect to get out of grad school. It's not all about reading and writing, it's about engaging in conversation with your colleagues, sharing ideas, research, etc. I don't know why you "wouldn't be caught dead going to a conference on literature," and statements like that are not going to make you any friends here. How exactly do you expect to keep up with what's going on in your field and network with your fellow academics? I don't mean to be harsh, but I think you should seriously give some thought as to whether this is the right career for you.

Fair enough. I guess I'm just banking on the idea that all you really need in order to be a good teacher and student of literature is to love and truly understand literature, and be able to communicate that love and understanding to other people. I'm not saying that it's not important to keep abreast of contemporary literary studies as well; I'm just saying that, to me, that's not nearly as important. What I really protest against is that literature itself is so completely over-shadowed by this "contemporary literary study," simply because English professors are more interested in their own mediocre (or possibly very interesting) work than they are in the true masterpieces of literature. Am I the only one who would rather lose 50 percent of all the literary studies published in the last century, than lose a single novel of their favorite author?

In short, isn't literature more important than the study of literature? Is it possible that much of the reason we spend so much time writing and talking about literature and comparatively so little time actually reading and pondering it, is that we've simply gotten bored of the literature itself, for the same silly reasons that the general public gets bored reading great literature?

And again, please try not to take what I'm saying as some kind of personal attack (for instance, I did not call Str2T "boring and petty" - I said that the activities he or she described as enriching seemed boring and petty to me). I'm not trying to start some English department revolution; I'm honestly just curious whether anyone else shares some of my concerns.

[hadunc]

Fair enough. I guess I'm just banking on the idea that all you really need in order to be a good teacher and student of literature is to love and truly understand literature, and be able to communicate that love and understanding to other people. I'm not saying that it's not important to keep abreast of contemporary literary studies as well; I'm just saying that, to me, that's not nearly as important. What I really protest against is that literature itself is so completely over-shadowed by this "contemporary literary study," simply because English professors are more interested in their own mediocre (or possibly very interesting) work than they are in the true masterpieces of literature. Am I the only one who would rather lose 50 percent of all the literary studies published in the last century, than lose a single novel of their favorite author?

In short, isn't literature more important than the study of literature? Is it possible that much of the reason we spend so much time writing and talking about literature and comparatively so little time actually reading and pondering it, is that we've simply gotten bored of the literature itself, for the same silly reasons that the general public gets bored reading great literature?

And again, please try not to take what I'm saying as some kind of personal attack (for instance, I did not call Str2T "boring and petty" - I said that the activities he or she described as enriching seemed boring and petty to me). I'm not trying to start some English department revolution; I'm honestly just curious whether anyone else shares some of my concerns.

I didn't accuse you of calling Str2T boring and petty, but I do think it was a bit rude to refer to his/her post as "boring and petty," especially since he/she gave you some very solid advice. My comment was not meant to be a personal attack either, but you have to understand that the people in this forum want to participate in conferences and enjoy the rigors of literary study. If you don't enjoy those things, this is not the field for you. If what you love is reading and writing, there are plenty of other careers out there that might suit you much better. Literary study, as you seem perfectly aware, is about much more than that. You can't expect to just "do" literary study...and it's a bit presumptuous to think you should be able to just step into the field and everyone should take your work seriously. This is like any other career: you start at the bottom. You gain experience by going to and participating in events like conferences.

I'm really not sure what your point is--what do you expect to teach in your classes if you don't believe in the value of literary study? I think what you might be trying to say is that the field is too theory based, and there are others out there who feel the same way, but you can't expect to not learn any theory at all in grad school. I'm curious, what is it you'd really like to see change? What exactly would focusing more on the literature itself entail, in your mind?

Regardless of your own methodology, the attitude that you wouldn't be caught dead in a conference is not going to get you anywhere. And you sound very naive when you say that you are banking on the idea that a love of literature is enough to cut it as a teacher and scholar. What does it even mean to truly "understand" literature, in your mind? You really need to do more research about what being an academic professional entails before you pursue this further.

[Pamphilia]

And you sound very naive when you say that you are banking on the idea that a love of literature is enough to cut it as a teacher and scholar. What does it even mean to truly "understand" literature, in your mind?

Yes, this. Unfortunately, a "true love of literature" does not an academic professional (or good student or teacher of literature) make. I have a true love of basketball, but it's not going to get me into the NBA. Having a true love of anything isn't enough. Deep appreciation for one's work goes a long way but in and of itself won't provide the skills necessary to pursue that work as a career. It may help you become an excellent amateur, but alone doesn't qualify one as a professional.

Edited February 23, 2010 by Pamphilia

[strokeofmidnight]

you have to understand that the people in this forum want to participate in conferences and enjoy the rigors of literary study. If you don't enjoy those things, this is not the field for you. If what you love is reading and writing, there are plenty of other careers out there that might suit you much better. Literary study, as you seem perfectly aware, is about much more than that. You can't expect to just "do" literary study...and it's a bit presumptuous to think you should be able to just step into the field and everyone should take your work seriously. This is like any other career: you start at the bottom. You gain experience by going to and participating in events like conferences.

I'm really not sure what your point is--what do you expect to teach in your classes if you don't believe in the value of literary study? I think what you might be trying to say is that the field is too theory based, and there are others out there who feel the same way, but you can't expect to not learn any theory at all in grad school. I'm curious, what is it you'd really like to see change? What exactly would focusing more on the literature itself entail, in your mind?

This. Pamphilia and hadunc are spot-on in their responses. English academia is a profession. While obviously every scholar has a slightly different approach, I think it's fair to say that the profession itself demands that we think and about literature in a critical (and often self-critical), responsible manner. I'm not quite sure what exactly you (subzoo) have in mind when you disparage literary scholarship. Certain, some scholarship is better than others, and some perhaps should never have been published. But I think the general ethos of our field--if we take it seriously--is to apply disciplined, nuanced criticism that might do justice to the literature that we love (or at least, appreciate). We might not always succeed, but for most of us, that seems to be the guiding principle.

It's also worth noting: loving literature and being a serious academic are not incompatible experiences. If anything, I'd argue that one can't be a good English academic without a serious love of and commitment to literary studies...but that passion in itself isn't sufficient. Aside from (and to me, far above) the obvious professionalization aspects of conferences, I go in order to engage with other scholars who are interested in similar books/topics/questions. Publications, rather than merely a line in the CV, is a chance to subject my scholarship to (ideally) a rigorous process by which I might gain feedback on what works, and what needs to be improved. Those aren't just hoops to jump over. (the GRE is, but that's a different story). Or perhaps, those *shouldn't* be viewed as mere professionalization hoops to someone who wants to enter the academy. Frankly, if this is how you see English academia, than perhaps it isn't the best place for you. This isn't to say that you can't read, think, and love literature. Obviously, one doesn't need a PhD to do so! But if you find the essential components of our profession to be so onerous, perhaps the Academy itself isn't the best place to pursue your love of literature. Graduate school can be long, painful, and impoverished 5-7 years unless you really enjoy the work of our field.

[intextrovert]

Fair enough. I guess I'm just banking on the idea that all you really need in order to be a good teacher and student of literature is to love and truly understand literature, and be able to communicate that love and understanding to other people. I'm not saying that it's not important to keep abreast of contemporary literary studies as well; I'm just saying that, to me, that's not nearly as important. What I really protest against is that literature itself is so completely over-shadowed by this "contemporary literary study," simply because English professors are more interested in their own mediocre (or possibly very interesting) work than they are in the true masterpieces of literature. Am I the only one who would rather lose 50 percent of all the literary studies published in the last century, than lose a single novel of their favorite author?

In short, isn't literature more important than the study of literature? Is it possible that much of the reason we spend so much time writing and talking about literature and comparatively so little time actually reading and pondering it, is that we've simply gotten bored of the literature itself, for the same silly reasons that the general public gets bored reading great literature?

And again, please try not to take what I'm saying as some kind of personal attack (for instance, I did not call Str2T "boring and petty" - I said that the activities he or she described as enriching seemed boring and petty to me). I'm not trying to start some English department revolution; I'm honestly just curious whether anyone else shares some of my concerns.

The posters above have covered a lot of my reaction to this, but I just wanted to add: if you want to go to grad school, particularly a Ph.D. program, it is for the study of literature - meaning the research aspect, the "writing and talking about it," the part you seem to think is "boring and petty." There's nothing wrong with not enjoying literary criticism (though I'd probably avoid denigrating it to a board full of people willing to give up reasonable future job security and live in abject poverty in order to practice it!), but understand that that is what Ph.D. programs are all about: training you to be a literary critic. Tham means inserting yourself into certain discourses. You say that doing research is somewhat egotistical, and I won't argue that some academics have egos to rival Kanye West's, but you can view it the opposite way: not engaging with others' ideas means you're only interested in your own reactions to literature instead of others! I don't know if that's really fair, but my point is that research isn't necessarily out of a solipsistic impulse, but can - should! - also come out of an impulse to understand.

It sounds like you are more interested in the teaching aspect of it, but that's only a part of what being an academic is about. I currently teach 12th grade English at a small, rigorous private school where I have pretty much total freedom over what I teach and really bright, motivated students. It totally fulfills the "communicating that love and understanding of literature to others" thing that you mention as criteria for a student and teacher of literature. I love it. But if were satisfied with that, I'd just stay here and maybe work on my M.A. during the summers. Lots of my incredibly brilliant colleagues do/did that and are immensely satisfied and fulfilled. But I miss research - I miss engaging with other people's ideas about literature, having a community of scholars to help bring me to new intellectual heights and provide different perspectives on the works and ideas I love; I miss having my own projects, the thrill of discovery that comes along with that. That's why I'm going to grad school. If you don't have that drive and desire, I would say this route isn't for you. It's a pretty scary route, in general. I do think you have to love literature, but almost even more so you have to also really love the study of literature, as that's what you'll be doing. Don't spend seven years of your life doing something you consider boring and petty (especially when there are others who live for those things)!

Edited February 23, 2010 by intextrovert

[Branwen daughter of Llyr]

Fair enough. I guess I'm just banking on the idea that all you really need in order to be a good teacher and student of literature is to love and truly understand literature, and be able to communicate that love and understanding to other people. I'm not saying that it's not important to keep abreast of contemporary literary studies as well; I'm just saying that, to me, that's not nearly as important. What I really protest against is that literature itself is so completely over-shadowed by this "contemporary literary study," simply because English professors are more interested in their own mediocre (or possibly very interesting) work than they are in the true masterpieces of literature. Am I the only one who would rather lose 50 percent of all the literary studies published in the last century, than lose a single novel of their favorite author?

In short, isn't literature more important than the study of literature? Is it possible that much of the reason we spend so much time writing and talking about literature and comparatively so little time actually reading and pondering it, is that we've simply gotten bored of the literature itself, for the same silly reasons that the general public gets bored reading great literature?

And again, please try not to take what I'm saying as some kind of personal attack (for instance, I did not call Str2T "boring and petty" - I said that the activities he or she described as enriching seemed boring and petty to me). I'm not trying to start some English department revolution; I'm honestly just curious whether anyone else shares some of my concerns.

A few things -

You are banking on the wrong idea for university level teaching. It may be enough to teach high-school - teaching students to appreciate literature is wonderful, indeed. But teaching college level is about much more than that - teaching students to think and write critically about literature. So they may LOVE Gullievers Travels, but can they analyze it? can the student think critically about it and apply critical methodology to it?

Personally the appreciation of literature is something completely different than the study of literature. And I wouldn't lose either. Critical work is important, since it is part of the global discussion on literary topics. If you don't enjoy the theory part - don't pursue a PhD. seriously. You can't get away with just close reading in graduate school. And even in your own way, you ARE pursuing criticism - of the "reader response" variety.

Conferences are wonderful opportunities to hear other people's research and ideas (opportunities I wish I currently had the privilege to attend), to get that lightblub over your head saying "oh my god, I can actually use this in my own work," or "I never thought of this before." And of course there is mediocre work. There is mediocre work in every single field. We're lucky in English, however, that often, that mediocre work provides a huge amount of discussion and development - take this as an example: 17th and 18th century adaptations of Shakespeare's plays were often undoubtedly mediocre. However, due to those adaptations, we NEVER lost Shakespeare as a culture! His work wasn't lost and then discovered. And these adaptations also create a wealth of scholarship in themselves - how does a particular adaptation reflect on the attitudes and social mores of the time? Why did this writer change this to that or that to this? How is this culturally significant?

You're treating literature as existing in a vacum, when it doesn't. Literature is connected to local culture, history, readership, psychology, conventions, innovations, and just about everything else. Yes, the enjoyment of literature is paramount to those of us who wish to spend our lives exploring it at a deep level and exchanging ideas with other scholars. But if I only wanted to teach high-school level English and the appreciation of literature (which is a wonderful thing), I would go get my MAT and teach at a good high-school with a progressive English program.

I most DEFINITELY would NOT pursue a PhD.

[hadunc]

A few things -

You are banking on the wrong idea for university level teaching. It may be enough to teach high-school - teaching students to appreciate literature is wonderful, indeed. But teaching college level is about much more than that - teaching students to think and write critically about literature. So they may LOVE Gullievers Travels, but can they analyze it? can the student think critically about it and apply critical methodology to it?

Personally the appreciation of literature is something completely different than the study of literature. And I wouldn't lose either. Critical work is important, since it is part of the global discussion on literary topics. If you don't enjoy the theory part - don't pursue a PhD. seriously. You can't get away with just close reading in graduate school. And even in your own way, you ARE pursuing criticism - of the "reader response" variety.

Conferences are wonderful opportunities to hear other people's research and ideas (opportunities I wish I currently had the privilege to attend), to get that lightblub over your head saying "oh my god, I can actually use this in my own work," or "I never thought of this before." And of course there is mediocre work. There is mediocre work in every single field. We're lucky in English, however, that often, that mediocre work provides a huge amount of discussion and development - take this as an example: 17th and 18th century adaptations of Shakespeare's plays were often undoubtedly mediocre. However, due to those adaptations, we NEVER lost Shakespeare as a culture! His work wasn't lost and then discovered. And these adaptations also create a wealth of scholarship in themselves - how does a particular adaptation reflect on the attitudes and social mores of the time? Why did this writer change this to that or that to this? How is this culturally significant?

You're treating literature as existing in a vacum, when it doesn't. Literature is connected to local culture, history, readership, psychology, conventions, innovations, and just about everything else. Yes, the enjoyment of literature is paramount to those of us who wish to spend our lives exploring it at a deep level and exchanging ideas with other scholars. But if I only wanted to teach high-school level English and the appreciation of literature (which is a wonderful thing), I would go get my MAT and teach at a good high-school with a progressive English program.

I most DEFINITELY would NOT pursue a PhD.

Wow, really well stated! I definitely second all of the above.

[Branwen daughter of Llyr]

In short, isn't literature more important than the study of literature? Is it possible that much of the reason we spend so much time writing and talking about literature and comparatively so little time actually reading and pondering it, is that we've simply gotten bored of the literature itself, for the same silly reasons that the general public gets bored reading great literature?

One more point:

Ummm... the reason we spend so much time writing and talking about literature is because we love it so much. Trust me, there is no way in hell I would be considering a PhD in the study of literature if certain texts didn't bring me to near orgasm . I've read Austen's books so many times, it ludicrous. And I'd STILL take an Austen class for critical thinking at the drop of a hat, despite being a medievalist. And of course I read literature and ponder it. But then I share my ideas with the rest of the world, and take in their ideas as well. And their ideas build /focus / alter my understanding of any piece.

Wow, really well stated! I definitely second all of the above.

*blush* thanks

[Aquinaplatostotlestine]

Up to a certain point I can sympathize with Subzoo, and I very much doubt if we are the only ones to occasionally bemoan the super-saturation of “Literature” with literary and cultural theory, race, gender, and queer theory, deconstruction and dialogism, Marxist (or Marxian) and post-colonial theory. But however frustrated I may get working my way through a particularly dense essay by Derrida, Gayatri Spivak or Judith Butler, I keep at it until I understand because 1) these theories have become the lens through which literature is viewed, explained, and contested in the Academy today (a staunch defender of classical ideals and the canon like Harold Bloom can complain about this all he wants, it doesn’t make it any less a fact or his position any less Arcadian); and 2) because these literary theorists, however much their purposefully difficult writing styles sometimes makes me want to throw their books against the wall of my room, do take the pulse of the cultures we live in (and of the history out of which our society has emerged and remains indebted to) and the way we view art, read literature, and think aesthetic concepts like the sublime and the beautiful is culturally informed. There is a Spanish philosopher named José Ortega y Gasset who understood this, I think, particularly well and who argued that “no hay valores plásticos absolutes.Todos ellos pertenecen a algún estilo, son relativos a él, y un estilo es el fruto de un sistema de convenciones vivas [No artistic values are absolute.They all pertain to a given style, and a style is the fruit of a system of living conventions]” (1). If Ortega y Gasset is correct (or if, for that matter, Nietzsche or Foucault are, who both say similar things), if our appreciation of literature and art is conditioned by the socio-cultural moment of which we are part, then the study of literary and cultural theory pays impressive dividends by means of the insight it offers us into the texts we love.

(What a funny turn these posts have taken, which began about getting a Masters degree. )

Cheers!

(1) _La deshumanización del arte y ideas sobre la novela_ (México,D.F.:Editorial Porrúa, 2007), p. 71.

Edited February 23, 2010 by Aquinaplatostotlestine

[subzoo]

[Note: What follows is a lengthy and occasionally ironic defense of my standpoint, so, lest anyone read it in a hostile light, let me just say that I really appreciate all the well-considered responses, and that I spent a good five, sobering minutes pondering them, and giving serious thought to whether I'm cut out for this business. So, though I do dispute many of the arguments you've made, I by no means consider them unreasonable or unfounded; I simply (surprise surprise) have my own opposing arguments. I hope they don't offend, and perhaps they'll even make you look a little more leniently on my presumptuous little ambitions.]

Okay, those are all convincing, or rather, from my perspective, very deflating arguments, and maybe I will forget about becoming an English professor - but only after giving it a shot. I still love literature and love writing about and discussing literature (in addition to professing a genuine aptitude for doing so, after my own fashion), so why shouldn't I try my hand at doing it as a profession? I'm almost embarrassed that I'm venturing on this profession without any of the intellectual apparatus you all seem to possess, and deem indispensable, but maybe that just means I'll be a different kind of literary professor and critic than you all aspire to be - one who judges literature from a different perspective than is offered by that intellectual apparatus. After all, there are literary critics who have done this: they simply happened to do it over a hundred years ago - but they're still great literary critics. Arnold, Pater, and Hazlitt, to name a few. I'm sure you're all thinking, everyone in "The Academy" would turn up their noses at such an anachronism as a literary critic whose idols are a hundred years dead. But maybe someone, somewhere, would be interested, and perhaps that tiny little public would be enough to justify my existence. Should it really matter so much to me that I would be a misfit, someone whose work most of my colleagues regard as worthless simply because it doesn't adhere to the same conventions and principles as theirs? Would I get in trouble? Would somebody arrest me?

In short, isn't it enough to follow my interest in literature in my own way, even if it's different from other people's way? Is it really fair of you to say that my method of criticizing literature can't be practiced at the university level, simply because it's different from the accepted method? I see your point: if all I wanted to do was read and talk about what I read, I could just as easily do that in a high school, or on my own. But, though I don't share your confidence that I perfectly fit into the Academy, I do feel a sort of calling to share my views of literature with the most intelligent, most sophisticated students of literature out there (as well as with the general public, God help them), and I feel that that calling is enough to justify me in at least trying to be a professor of English. The anticipation that my work won't fit in very well with the work that's being done in the Academy does worry me a little, but look at it this way: should we really look at our work and think to ourselves, "Barring a few discrepancies of opinion, this is exactly like what is being published by my colleagues! Great!" Isn't it perhaps better to look at our work and say, "Hmm, this probably won't quite mesh with my colleagues' work, but, damn it, I believe in it - perhaps it really is worth putting out there." (And here I might add that I do not, as everyone seems to assume, disparage modern literary theory. If anything, I look up to people like Derrida and Deleuze and Guattari, precisely because they didn't try to conform to the Academy, but simply put forth their individual theories of literature. Surely no one would claim that their work suffered from their not having attended enough conferences on literature. Granted, they didn't write about literature as though it were in a vacuum, but nor do I propose to do: I simply propose to write about it from a different perspective than that offered by the latest papers published on JSTOR, just as they wrote from different perspectives than those offered by the academic research of their time. ...please don't exaggerate my little criticism of JSTOR, as everyone (understandably) took my statement about literature conferences far too seriously. I don't really think these things completely worthless, I just don't think they're nearly as important as everyone says they are. (When a man hasn't read half of the masterpieces of literature, or perhaps even a quarter of them, can he really be expected to spend much time on JSTOR?) For some people, perhaps JSTOR and all the contemporary literary journals are quite central to their work; if they aren't central to mine, does that mean I'm not qualified to be an English professor?)

Finally, let me say one more thing, more or less in my defense. Ever since I became a "student of literature," I've heard teachers tell the class to write their papers in a certain way, and express their thoughts in a certain way, etc. etc. And it always worried me, but I couldn't let it stop me from writing in my way. When I set the book in front of me and honestly expressed my thoughts about it, the paper just took on its own shape, and, instead of making what I considered to be a "convincing argument," I ended up simply saying something (or some things) that was true about the book (which in itself is a kind of argument, since everyone has their own version of the truth). Now, if I had listened to my teachers, I would have gotten scared and torn up my paper, and written it all over in the way they advised. But I never did, I gave them my disobedient little efforts, and (sorry to boast, it's not like it's hard to get an "A" in our days of grade inflation) not once did they fail to praise my work. Is it possible they just didn't know what they wanted, and were pleased when they received something that didn't quite resemble what they were used to? I don't know; my point really is simply that I'm not going to get scared just because everyone's warning me about the dangers of non-conformity. Jesus, haven't we read enough great literature to know that nothing worthwhile conforms perfectly to the status quo? I know, I know, I know, literature is not the same as literary criticism: but surely some of the wisdom we gain from literature should be applied in our practice of literary criticism. Surely literary criticism is more than just a job, to be performed according to the rules.

[Branwen daughter of Llyr]

If you would have stated your opinion in the way you just did from the beginning, this would have been a completely different discussion.

However, your attitude was that conferences were "boring and petty" that criticism was "defunct" that people were "bored with literature."

Of course I don't want my work to be like anyone else's. I want it to be unique and MINE. But critical theory can help - sometimes an additional angle can give you some unexpected insights into a literary piece. And trust me, I'm not much of a fan of a lot of critical theory - I'm much more interested in personal interpretation, close reading, some narrative theory, and a whole lot of Jungian "myth" criticism. I also, belong to an "older" time, I adore Harold Bloom, and most of my papers from college aren't chock-filled with Fucault, or any other theorist for that matter (barring my honors thesis, which actually includes some critical theory regarding carnivalesque space, applied to children's literature).

However, I would NOT disparage the current theoretical community by calling it "boring and petty." As I stated, yes, some is mediocre, as in every profession. But I look forward to going to conferences and hearing other people's work, as well as presenting my own. I look forward to having other brilliant people try to punch holes through my arguments. I look forward to hearing a new critical approach that I might be able to apply to my own, unique work, and hopefully contribute to the general discussion.

Intellectual apparatus? I don't have any. I haven't gone to a conference in my entire life, nor published a paper. I graduated in 2001 with honors from a good program in a tier-3 school, and I was lucky enough to have profs that FORCED me to think critically about a piece rather than just gush about it. Searching for sub-text and "what the author means" is also criticism, remember. Figuring out cultural influences of the time, placing a literary piece in context, discussing how certain words were chosen to express an idea - all this is CRITICAL THINKING. It doesn't mean you have to "conform" to what other people are doing. Trust me - I have no intention of teaching my future students to read The Cantebury Tales in queer theory. Not my thing.

But to write a dissertation, you can't work in a vacuum of "text only". If you're not interested in deconstruction, structuralism, queer, gender, marxist, or any of those, work with reader response. work with new criticism. work with new historicism. Support your argument by using other critical thinkers' ideas as well, and how they can apply to the text you are working on.

But to reiterate - if you had written about things the way you did in the above post from the beginning, I doubt you would have been jumped at so strongly. It's not about everyone doing the same thing - it is, however, about respecting each other as a community of thinkers, and respecting other people's approaches. After all, there is no one truth regarding literature (as you yourself stated), and I've often said that I can prove that Shakespeare was anti-semetic as well as proving that he loved Jews from The Merchant of Venice.

And if you don't want to publish, don't . however, this means you'll NEVER be a full prof. Unfortunately, those are the rules of the game.

[hadunc]

If you would have stated your opinion in the way you just did from the beginning, this would have been a completely different discussion.

However, your attitude was that conferences were "boring and petty" that criticism was "defunct" that people were "bored with literature."

Of course I don't want my work to be like anyone else's. I want it to be unique and MINE. But critical theory can help - sometimes an additional angle can give you some unexpected insights into a literary piece. And trust me, I'm not much of a fan of a lot of critical theory - I'm much more interested in personal interpretation, close reading, some narrative theory, and a whole lot of Jungian "myth" criticism. I also, belong to an "older" time, I adore Harold Bloom, and most of my papers from college aren't chock-filled with Fucault, or any other theorist for that matter (barring my honors thesis, which actually includes some critical theory regarding carnivalesque space, applied to children's literature).

However, I would NOT disparage the current theoretical community by calling it "boring and petty." As I stated, yes, some is mediocre, as in every profession. But I look forward to going to conferences and hearing other people's work, as well as presenting my own. I look forward to having other brilliant people try to punch holes through my arguments. I look forward to hearing a new critical approach that I might be able to apply to my own, unique work, and hopefully contribute to the general discussion.

Intellectual apparatus? I don't have any. I haven't gone to a conference in my entire life, nor published a paper. I graduated in 2001 with honors from a good program in a tier-3 school, and I was lucky enough to have profs that FORCED me to think critically about a piece rather than just gush about it. Searching for sub-text and "what the author means" is also criticism, remember. Figuring out cultural influences of the time, placing a literary piece in context, discussing how certain words were chosen to express an idea - all this is CRITICAL THINKING. It doesn't mean you have to "conform" to what other people are doing. Trust me - I have no intention of teaching my future students to read The Cantebury Tales in queer theory. Not my thing.

But to write a dissertation, you can't work in a vacuum of "text only". If you're not interested in deconstruction, structuralism, queer, gender, marxist, or any of those, work with reader response. work with new criticism. work with new historicism. Support your argument by using other critical thinkers' ideas as well, and how they can apply to the text you are working on.

But to reiterate - if you had written about things the way you did in the above post from the beginning, I doubt you would have been jumped at so strongly. It's not about everyone doing the same thing - it is, however, about respecting each other as a community of thinkers, and respecting other people's approaches. After all, there is no one truth regarding literature (as you yourself stated), and I've often said that I can prove that Shakespeare was anti-semetic as well as proving that he loved Jews from The Merchant of Venice.

And if you don't want to publish, don't . however, this means you'll NEVER be a full prof. Unfortunately, those are the rules of the game.

Another great response in this rather contentious discussion, Branwen! I don't have too much to add, except that I at one time probably would have agreed with a lot of what Subzoo said in his/her most recent post. However, that was before I started to get a firm grasp on theory and realized what a useful tool it could be! Using theory doesn't mean you are "conforming," it means you are participating in a discourse, which is what literary study is all about. Just like literature is never produced inside of a vacuum but rather responds and reacts to what has been produced before, literary criticism also evolves and responds to what has been said in the past. If you want to be taken seriously as a scholar, you must place your work within some frame of reference, otherwise, to put it bluntly, it's rather meaningless. Even if your views are anachronistic, which is not necessarily a bad thing, you are going to need to at least understand the scholarly work that's being produced today and make reference to it, otherwise it doesn't really contribute anything to the field.

I think I've said it before on this board, but before you can break the rules, you need to learn the rules. You must be able to articulate exactly what it is you object to about today's theory, and why. Subzoo, you strike me as rather abrasive and close-minded when it comes to criticism that you don't agree with, and I think you might find yourself very unhappy in a PhD program as a result. While there's nothing wrong with trying, I think if I were you I would do a Masters first, to make sure this is really what you want to pursue. You may very well find that graduate study is not anything like what you expect or think it should be.

[intextrovert]

[Note: What follows is a lengthy and occasionally ironic defense of my standpoint, so, lest anyone read it in a hostile light, let me just say that I really appreciate all the well-considered responses, and that I spent a good five, sobering minutes pondering them, and giving serious thought to whether I'm cut out for this business. So, though I do dispute many of the arguments you've made, I by no means consider them unreasonable or unfounded; I simply (surprise surprise) have my own opposing arguments. I hope they don't offend, and perhaps they'll even make you look a little more leniently on my presumptuous little ambitions.]

Okay, those are all convincing, or rather, from my perspective, very deflating arguments, and maybe I will forget about becoming an English professor - but only after giving it a shot. I still love literature and love writing about and discussing literature (in addition to professing a genuine aptitude for doing so, after my own fashion), so why shouldn't I try my hand at doing it as a profession? I'm almost embarrassed that I'm venturing on this profession without any of the intellectual apparatus you all seem to possess, and deem indispensable, but maybe that just means I'll be a different kind of literary professor and critic than you all aspire to be - one who judges literature from a different perspective than is offered by that intellectual apparatus. After all, there are literary critics who have done this: they simply happened to do it over a hundred years ago - but they're still great literary critics. Arnold, Pater, and Hazlitt, to name a few. I'm sure you're all thinking, everyone in "The Academy" would turn up their noses at such an anachronism as a literary critic whose idols are a hundred years dead. But maybe someone, somewhere, would be interested, and perhaps that tiny little public would be enough to justify my existence. Should it really matter so much to me that I would be a misfit, someone whose work most of my colleagues regard as worthless simply because it doesn't adhere to the same conventions and principles as theirs? Would I get in trouble? Would somebody arrest me?

In short, isn't it enough to follow my interest in literature in my own way, even if it's different from other people's way? Is it really fair of you to say that my method of criticizing literature can't be practiced at the university level, simply because it's different from the accepted method? I see your point: if all I wanted to do was read and talk about what I read, I could just as easily do that in a high school, or on my own. But, though I don't share your confidence that I perfectly fit into the Academy, I do feel a sort of calling to share my views of literature with the most intelligent, most sophisticated students of literature out there (as well as with the general public, God help them), and I feel that that calling is enough to justify me in at least trying to be a professor of English. The anticipation that my work won't fit in very well with the work that's being done in the Academy does worry me a little, but look at it this way: should we really look at our work and think to ourselves, "Barring a few discrepancies of opinion, this is exactly like what is being published by my colleagues! Great!" Isn't it perhaps better to look at our work and say, "Hmm, this probably won't quite mesh with my colleagues' work, but, damn it, I believe in it - perhaps it really is worth putting out there." (And here I might add that I do not, as everyone seems to assume, disparage modern literary theory. If anything, I look up to people like Derrida and Deleuze and Guattari, precisely because they didn't try to conform to the Academy, but simply put forth their individual theories of literature. Surely no one would claim that their work suffered from their not having attended enough conferences on literature. Granted, they didn't write about literature as though it were in a vacuum, but nor do I propose to do: I simply propose to write about it from a different perspective than that offered by the latest papers published on JSTOR, just as they wrote from different perspectives than those offered by the academic research of their time. ...please don't exaggerate my little criticism of JSTOR, as everyone (understandably) took my statement about literature conferences far too seriously. I don't really think these things completely worthless, I just don't think they're nearly as important as everyone says they are. (When a man hasn't read half of the masterpieces of literature, or perhaps even a quarter of them, can he really be expected to spend much time on JSTOR?) For some people, perhaps JSTOR and all the contemporary literary journals are quite central to their work; if they aren't central to mine, does that mean I'm not qualified to be an English professor?)

Finally, let me say one more thing, more or less in my defense. Ever since I became a "student of literature," I've heard teachers tell the class to write their papers in a certain way, and express their thoughts in a certain way, etc. etc. And it always worried me, but I couldn't let it stop me from writing in my way. When I set the book in front of me and honestly expressed my thoughts about it, the paper just took on its own shape, and, instead of making what I considered to be a "convincing argument," I ended up simply saying something (or some things) that was true about the book (which in itself is a kind of argument, since everyone has their own version of the truth). Now, if I had listened to my teachers, I would have gotten scared and torn up my paper, and written it all over in the way they advised. But I never did, I gave them my disobedient little efforts, and (sorry to boast, it's not like it's hard to get an "A" in our days of grade inflation) not once did they fail to praise my work. Is it possible they just didn't know what they wanted, and were pleased when they received something that didn't quite resemble what they were used to? I don't know; my point really is simply that I'm not going to get scared just because everyone's warning me about the dangers of non-conformity. Jesus, haven't we read enough great literature to know that nothing worthwhile conforms perfectly to the status quo? I know, I know, I know, literature is not the same as literary criticism: but surely some of the wisdom we gain from literature should be applied in our practice of literary criticism. Surely literary criticism is more than just a job, to be performed according to the rules.

Tagging on to what Branwen and hadunc said, you seem to be under the impression that when you write a paper on a book, it is devoid of any sort of theoretical bent. You also say you want to write what's "true" about a work. But how do you decide what's true? You do it based on certain theoretical assumptions (a methodology), whether you're aware of them or not. At the undergrad level, you don't really have to have a full comprehension of those assumptions, but at the grad level, and certainly as an academic, you're expected to be aware of the framework you're using, the implications of that framework, and use that methodology self-consciously. Your response sort of lumps together the work being done as "contemporary," and imply that everyone is sort of conforming to what's trendy, but there are a myriad of different frameworks and methodologies people are working with. And everyone is trying to do something unique! So no, you wouldn't get arrested for doing something different, but you also won't get hired (or published) if you're completely unaware of what framework you're using. As a concrete example, say you write about the theme of black and white in Heart of Darkness. In high-level work you can't stop at a basic close reading of how Conrad uses black and white - that's the first step, but you have to say why it matters, what you're saying about that fact. Are you saying it reflects certain racial constructs? Then you should really be aware of postcolonial and racial theory. Are you saying his dichotomies bleed into each other and reverse, undermining the concept of perceptual and linguistic dichotomy? You'd better know something about structuralist and post-structuralist theory. In both cases, you also ought to be aware of what others have said about the issue. Obviously a simplistic example, but you get the idea. I know you're using conferences just as an example, but I still find it troubling that you seem to be uninterested in different perspectives on literature. I mean, that's what studying literature is. You use Derrida and Foucault as examples of people that wouldn't have been criticized for not going to conferences, but those were people EXTREMELY aware of the intellectual legacy they came out of and were then pushing against, and they couldn't have done the work they did without understanding what others were saying and had said, which is basically what conferences (and grad schools/criticism/theory!) are about. But you can't break the rules if you don't know them. If you're not interested in what others have to say about literature, why should anyone be interested in what you have to say?

I can't believe I'm about to post this, because I do think the guy who wrote it is basically a jerk, but I am nevertheless glad I read it. I think his conclusions are totally extreme, but his premises are true. Grad school, especially a Ph.D. program, isn't something you give a try just because you were good at English and liked it in undergrad, because it is a huge risk. I mean, I would say a whole lot of us were "department darlings" in undergrad, and probably a good majority of English Ph.D. applicants were straight-A English students (or close), but nevertheless there's still a 2-10% acceptance rate at most of these programs, even with an almost laughably impressive applicant pool. So that's not the criteria anyone should used to decide to do it. What you do in undergrad is not the same as what you do in grad school/academia. Especially if you're not particularly interested in publishing scholarly articles, it'll be basically impossible to find TT jobs on the other end. I'm not saying I agree with this dude, because I don't (obviously - I'm single, not wealthy, and not well-connected, yet I'm going to grad school in the humanities), but I do think it's important to be aware of what you're getting yourself into:

http://chronicle.com/article/Graduate-School-in-the-Huma/44846/

It's a scary article, but I figure if grad school is really the right decision for you, this won't scare you off, and you know the risks going in.

Also, don't knock high school teaching! There are lots of truly wonderful (usually private) schools where you'd be working with very high-level students of literature - some of my students inspire and astound me, and make me think, every day. And those schools are always looking for smart, passionate people like yourself. It's not a lesser job or a less respectable way to make a living; it's just different. At the university level, though, you're expected to be a scholar as well, to engage with your fellow scholars' ideas and not just your own. Ask yourself if you want to do that. If you don't, don't do a Ph.D. with the goal of being a prof. Jobs are scarce and if you're not really committed to scholarship, you're setting yourself up for real unhappiness.

Edited February 23, 2010 by intextrovert

[Branwen daughter of Llyr]

Tagging on to what Branwen and hadunc said, you seem to be under the impression that when you write a paper on a book, it is devoid of any sort of theoretical bent. You also say you want to write what's "true" about a work. But how do you decide what's true? You do it based on certain theoretical assumptions (a methodology), whether you're aware of them or not. At the undergrad level, you don't really have to have a full comprehension of those assumptions, but at the grad level, and certainly as an academic, you're expected to be aware of the framework you're using, the implications of that framework, and use that methodology self-consciously. Your response sort of lumps together the work being done as "contemporary," and imply that everyone is sort of conforming to what's trendy, but there are a myriad of different frameworks and methodologies people are working with. And everyone is trying to do something unique! So no, you wouldn't get arrested for doing something different, but you also won't get hired (or published) if you're completely unaware of what framework you're using. As a concrete example, say you write about the theme of black and white in Heart of Darkness. In high-level work you can't stop at a basic close reading of how Conrad uses black and white - that's the first step, but you have to say why it matters, what you're saying about that fact. Are you saying it reflects certain racial constructs? Then you should really be aware of postcolonial and racial theory. Are you saying his dichotomies bleed into each other and reverse, undermining the concept of perceptual and linguistic dichotomy? You'd better know something about structuralist and post-structuralist theory. In both cases, you also ought to be aware of what others have said about the issue. Obviously a simplistic example, but you get the idea. I know you're using conferences just as an example, but I still find it troubling that you seem to be uninterested in different perspectives on literature. I mean, that's what studying literature is. You use Derrida and Foucault as examples of people that wouldn't have been criticized for not going to conferences, but those were people EXTREMELY aware of the intellectual legacy they came out of and were then pushing against. But you can't break the rules if you don't know them. If you're not interested in what others have to say about literature, why should anyone be interested in what you have to say?

Thank you for stating that so clearly!! See - this is why I can't wait to go to grad school. Yummy discussion at 1:30 am (well, it is here) about critical theory and why it's important to be a part of current discourse.

@ hadunc, indeed you are right about the rules - even Picasso knew that to break the rules, you first have to know them VERY well (and boy did he break them to cubic little pieces).

[Str2T]

I hear what you're saying, but all of those things sound so boring and petty to me. I just want to study write about and teach literature - I hate that I'm considered unqualified to do so until I've accumulated all of these stupid little accolades. It's like the old argument about whether anyone can really learn how to be a writer; I look at the study of literature as pretty similar to writing, which is to say, I don't think it's just some job that you learn how to do, but rather a kind of calling that you just do. But maybe I'm just bitter because I've never published and never presented at any conferences - and for that matter wouldn't be caught dead going to a conference on literature - much better to just read or write, or better yet just live.

... I'm not saying all this to criticize you; your answer makes perfect sense and I'll probably end up scrounging those qualifications myself. I'm just wondering whether anyone else feels this way - feels alienated by the business-like attitude of all these so-called lovers of literature. Alienated by the fact that all these English department people sound exactly like the finance department people and the psychology department people etc.

Sometimes the prospect of what is needed to succeed in the field seems daunting. But I loved every single minute of teaching, writing articles, and presenting my ideas at conferences. This is what you do when you are no longer taking courses (and it is often your only way to earn "praise"). In all fairness, it has taken me three years of graduate study to accomplish these things, as well as finding a balance between "competitive student" and "humble peer" to get these opportunities. That's seven years in academia all ready! Almost a third of my life. Most of the hoops the field makes you jump through are merely in place to weed out less motivated people, but you'll find upon entrance that there is a rhyme and a reason for most requirements. Presenting and attending conferences, which seems to be one of your bigger issues, has made me a better teacher and student of literature. (And teaching a bunch of under-motivated Gen. Ed. credit students Beloved or Geek Love in a literature survey course is trying at times to say the least). Not that I don't love Socrates, but what good is learning unless you have a method of sharing or utilizing that information?