what the fuck am i getting myself into with this grad school stuff

― ksh me thru the phone (c sharp major),

looooool

turns out my shitty dissertation wasn't so shitty after all

Awww! You didn't even know yer own strength.

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_riwnmjGkcQA/SE8k6FcysiI/AAAAAAAAAVM/HUol1mwPKOg/California+Disneyland+041.JPG

hooo lordy

http://chronicle.com/article/The-Shadow-Scholar/125329/

66k isn't bad dough

46. corvus_caurinus - November 14, 2010 at 08:03 pm
Well, it's clear from the article itself that our dear author is accustomed to being paid by the word.

ha

I worry about this stuff since I teach in the humanities & I've adjusted my writing assignments to try to avoid this, but it's not possible, so long as the writing is happening outside of class. I continually toy with the idea of having all writing, at the undergrad level at least, be done in class. I doubt that in my discipline, at my level, one of these guys could write at the grad level.

The flip side of all this is that the evaluation of students that matters happens independently of grading on assignments---it happens through dialogue, etc. This means that evaluation is ripe for prejudices, but you can't just rest on the written word anymore, I think, if you ever could.

some of the experiences I have had at uni make so much more sense after having read that article

don't have time to read it just now, but this is something that's interested me since I looked at the service that google mail ads was shoving at me (e-mailing yrself stuff for your dissertation? No need!). I think if I had money to blow mindlessly I'd try some of their more high-end products (high-end to the point of utter disbelief - you can get a 20,000 word masters thesis with 50 references to me in a week?) just out of interest.

yeah, I want to say that if these people can produce work that meets the so-called standards of a discipline, that just shows that the discipline is an abomination. But I'm only speaking at the grad level; everyone knows that attention to grading at the undergrad level is pretty, er, variable, and as I said yesterday, not the basis of the judgments on the part of faculty that really matter, i.e. for letters of recommendation.

I'm considering this seriously, either for a developmental psychology PhD or a school psychology program, but I think I've left it too late for the fall semester of 2011. I'd have to cram for the GRE in a single weekend in order to get the scores to the schools in time (I think), for a start. I'd have no serious problems with the verbal, but the quantitative is going to take some serious revision and practice.

I'm only just getting to know the US grad school system, so I fell like my best shot (at fit-to-advisor, financial aid, picking an appropriate school, choosing between dev psych and school psych, *everything*) is to wait till next year. On the other hand, just hammering out a few apps for the Dec 15th deadlines and seeing what happens is really tempting.

I say go for it! I am a p. good copyeditor if that helps. Don't look to me for GRE tutoring, however--my quantitative score was much lower than my verbal, which was pretty odd for a science grad.

I studied for less than two weeks for my GRE and I did pretty well. There's some good GRE stuff on this threads (most recent/briefest of the GRE threads tho there is a long, older pre-essay section one): I hate the GRE already (non-Amerkins, ignore)
I read that the thing they judge on the essay is just length! The longer the better every time.

I am applying for a different grad program, a one year masters of education program that would make me eligible to teach high school & jr. high. I asked three former profs for recommendation letters on Monday and all three have sent them out! They were all v enthusiastic about me teaching. I just hope the admissions people are half as enthusiastic.

Oh man Abbs you would make such a good teacher.

Trying this year but treating it primarily as a practice run might be a useful idea, if you don't think you're likely to be successful given the time constraints. This way you'll have the experience to make a much better application next year.

(I started applying for postdoctoral fellowships this year even though I've got two years left on my current contract, and the experience was very valuable)

Thanks for the advice, the link to the other thread, and thanks q for the copywriting offer! I've taken a day off work tomorrow and I'm going to work through my shortlist of schools, whittle it down some more, call them up and ask about financial aid, check deadlines, etc. Then decide whether a shot at the GRE is worth it, er, 3 days after that.

My worry is, though, that if I do badly this year on a quick shot, in the future schools will see that score as well as any improved future score, and think worse of me. Does it matter? Actually I should post that to the GRE thread...

From the comments to that plagiarism article:

I have committee member who only lets students work on their papers during class, papers that they turn in to him between classes. They never get to take their papers home

Weirdly I used to do OK in exams, but I'm a total procrastinator so there's a big psychological difference between "you've got 3 hours, start writing" and "you've got 3 weeks", even if your 3 weeks is actually only 6 hours of class time with someone staring beadily at you for all of them.

PS good luck ljubljana and Abbott!

Maybe I just felt sad reading that article because someone is cranking out tens of term papers a week without knowing anything about the subjects, just knuckling down for a few hours and Googling the basics and a few quotes or unread references to throw into their boilerplate, and if someone had told me that's all it took at the time maybe I could've done my work at university after all, instead of deciding to go crazy and waste ten grand and add a giant blank hole to my CV. Or maybe I'd have gone even crazier knowing that I couldn't even do my own "specialist subject" as competently as any literate outsider with the patience to read Wikipedia, of course.

If all you were looking for is a credential next to your name, then yeah, you probably could have gamed the system that way. If you actually wanted to learn your subject, either for its utility or for its intrinsic value, then going that route would have been ridiculous. Like I tell my students, cheating at school is like cheating at solitaire. No one really cares what your grades are: they care about what you can do for them.

As a consequence I think much of American white-collar industry is a house of cards, intellectually speaking, and I expect the shit to hit the fan soon (in fact it's already begun).

agreed. the academic ghost writer diagnoses the situation pretty well:

From my experience, three demographic groups seek out my services: the English-as-second-language student; the hopelessly deficient student; and the lazy rich kid.

For the last, colleges are a perfect launching ground—they are built to reward the rich and to forgive them their laziness. Let's be honest: The successful among us are not always the best and the brightest, and certainly not the most ethical. My favorite customers are those with an unlimited supply of money and no shortage of instructions on how they would like to see their work executed. While the deficient student will generally not know how to ask for what he wants until he doesn't get it, the lazy rich student will know exactly what he wants. He is poised for a life of paying others and telling them what to do. Indeed, he is acquiring all the skills he needs to stay on top.

I remember editing a friend's paper in college who was an ESL learner. it was pretty dreadful - and he had been to see the writing tutor a couple of times. ESL learners really do need to have english presented to them in a different way than for native speakers - but even my university, a very prestigious one, didn't really have any ESL resources on hand

hi ilx i have a bunch of questions thank you for your time

considering applying for a master's degree, either the mst in english + american studies at oxford or the mphil in american literature at cambridge

general question: is this a horrific waste of time and money - ? will it make me any more employable - ? (links to external resources v. welcome here)

more specific question: how well would one of these qualifications set me up, were i to apply for phd programmes in related fields in the states in a couple years? is it likely that schools there would want me to sit their own master's before embarking on a doctoral course? and -- probably the kicker -- what kind of funding actually exists for phd english in the united states, other than 'a lifetime of debt'? and how much of it is off-limits for foreigners?

Thomp - I know nothing about the world of English Lit, but I can probably help you with any questions about Cambridge grad applications.

Thomp, the very best US schools will fund the PhD students that they admit.

It's very common for US Phd programmes to have a taught component as a masters or equivalent to a masters, you'll get some credit for externally taken graduate level courses but it's highly unlikely you'll be able to bypass the taught component. That said you will stand a better chance of getting into a top level US Phd programme with an oxbridge masters, thus more chance of getting funded and possibly more chance of getting a job out the other side*, however YMMV.

(*getting a job in Academia is hard, doubly so in Humanities and trebly so in English Lit, see the chronicle of higher education forums for details)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obTNwPJvOI8&feature=share

if time and money are important to you it would be (much) quicker and cheaper to do an arts PhD in the UK (if you can get funding, and possibly even if you can't).

like ed says, a uk masters will probably not save you significant time in US grad school (it will presumably be your fourth year of higher ed, which US undergrads already have), but it may make the difference with applications to top schools.

general question: is this a horrific waste of time and money - ? will it make me any more employable - ? (links to external resources v. welcome here)

answers to these depend on what you want to do long term. thread favourites are:

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

http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/files/2010/01/educationalattainment.png

Bobby Gold: What happened to the job?
Tim Sullivan: Mm.
Bobby Gold: Fuckin' politics, man, nuthin' but politics. Motherfucker called me a kike...
Tim Sullivan: I heard 'im.
Bobby Gold: Job's changed. It ain't the same job.
Tim Sullivan: Job's the same...
Bobby Gold: Yeah?
Tim Sullivan: People dyin', people killin' 'em.

otm

Thomp, the very best US schools will fund the PhD students that they admit.

― ljubljana, Monday, November 29, 2010 8:58 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark

the flip side is a US PhD takes a min. of 5 years to complete (I think)

my TA from my (prestigious) uni who just got his PhD in english lit is now teaching at 'm4nhattanville college'

the median time to complete a phd in the humanities in the us is nine years. median. that's not the mean being effed up by some guy who took thirty years.

if you don't mind going to china, china's probably gonna be hiring a ton of profs in the coming years...maybe

im in year six. must finish by new year.

got two hours teaching a week next term.* my maiden outing in the role of ted mosby.

*no contract yet so prolly jinxed it now

the other day i was talking to a guy doing linguistics here who said that his masters, in the US, had taken four years despite the fact that he'd satisfactorily completed all the work in the second year - he changed subjects after the first year, was told he'd be able to complete, and then they changed their minds and made him do everything over again.

But good people, at least in my area of the humanities, finish in five or six years, mostly, unless they add a side speciality like cog psych in which case you can add a couple of years. I'm talking USA.

In general if you think you want to try to get a job in a particular country eventually, then get a Ph.D. in that country. Your letter writers will have more influence in your "home" country than in other countries, and you'll thus have a much easier time getting a job in that country. I'm saying this as someone who is extremely interested in getting a job in countries besides the one in which he got his Ph.D. btw.

yes, that is absolutely true. i have massive regrets about being too idle to figure out the GRE. as it happens, i'm finishing after 5 1/4 years, so not much quicker than i would have done in the US, but i'm finding the job market tough without the connections and the publications i would have. lived vicariously through a couple of undergrads i helped apply (and get in) to MIT last year.

lol at me upthread in november 2008 claiming i'd submit in 9 months, i.e. summer 2009. i was wrong by ~200%.

mine's been a crazy rollercoaster that has sometimes been shut down for bullshit safety code violations

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf06312/tab3.gif

(RTD is the relevant number)

but good people, at least in my area of the humanities, finish in five or six years

is just a statement that the best people finish in the fastest possible time. it's not typical, even at "research intensive" places, which i assume is the research 1s.

thomp:

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf06312/

The results in table 5 indicate that individuals who did not report earning any master's degree (about 25 percent of the population) generally had lower median registered time to degrees than those who did earn a master's degree. Not surprisingly, among master's degree holders, registered time to degree was higher for those whose master's was in a field of study unrelated to their doctoral field.

Those numbers misrepresent things, in that people with any chance at a good job (which may mean any job in this environment) finish a lot more quickly than that. You need a couple of years of coursework first (which will drain your soul & force you to realize how stupid you are, at least if your program is any good; this is just the first of many hazings that you'll need to toughen you up for what's ahead). Then three years to write a dissertation is normal. You need a year to find a project, and two to write it. Add a year at the end to find a job if you're not a superstar but just a potential star. After that, there will be other hot young things that'll get the attention, unless you really have a breakthrough, which is super unusual. Again, this is all USA-centric.

xxp to caek: absolutely; but you need to be amongst the best people if you want a chance at a job; o/w don't go, imo.

E's department has a median completion time of 9 yrs, social sciences with a department that is very keen on ethnographic field work. the people who finish quicker seem to be lighter weight in terms of rigor and output.

Those numbers misrepresent things, in that people with any chance at a good job (which may mean any job in this environment) finish a lot more quickly than that

i don't see how this misrepresents things? all the people used to construct those stats were admitted to graduate school.

It misrepresents things only inasmuch as it portrays ten year stints in grad school as the norm & thus nothing to worry about.

well, they are the norm in the sense that they are the median among the people who get admitted.

obviously they are something to be extremely worried about though (especially for potential students)

right: I'm reading "norm" both in a statistical sense & in a "normative" sense framing what's "ok".

Median skews higher if it includes people who don't complete

xpost

apples and oranges, but here's the UK equivalent. RTD here is about 4 and a bit years, with little variation among subjects. it's pretty much the same in germany, which is the other system i know, but their undergrad degrees are five years.

http://min.us/jdbbzo.png

Median skews higher if it includes people who don't complete

higher than what? what's the "true" value? how to you include people who don't complete?