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

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?

higher that if the set was all people who completed, which is the set you'd have to do a mean on.

i don't understand. those stats are for all the people who completed. the _mean_ of that set skews higher because the distribution has a bit tail of people who take 10+ years and no tail of people who take 1-3 years.

"a big tail"

oh i think i see the confusion. you said "Median skews higher if it includes people who don't complete". it doesn't include those people, so no, it doesn't skew high.

thanks guys

fwiw i really do not want to stay in england long enough to complete (or even enroll in, tbh) a PhD program here, and rather doubt i'd want to take a phd unless i had funding guaranteed. that a master's won't save time is a little disappointing, but my undergraduate results are lacking enough that i'd still want the leg-up a master's would, i think, achieve.

i guess the thing to decide is whether a master's would be worthwhile in terms of other career prospects if i choose not to make myself a lifer in academia? which i'm edging towards thinking it is - i'd go into high school teaching, probably - or at least it's a small enough investment of time to be worth a shot.

also i am very confident i would enjoy it, as a thing to be spending my time doing, for a year. which is probably an important factor.

so gf officially applied to french phds, despite being far from 100% on the idea. partly to keep her (academic) mom happy, partly to have another option on the table. she should (?) have a good shot at her alma mater, which is one of the better schools in the field (apparently) but phd admission rates are pretty o_0, so who knows?

I keep telling her to ditch after 2 years and get a free masters out of it. there are worse ways to spend 2 years, surely.

thomp, if you do go the masters route, remember to try to work on getting a couple of academics to know your work (and ideally you/your plans) well enough to write strong letters of recommendation. they are looked at closely by applications committees for phds.

since i haven't done any applications and wouldn't hear anything until at least august anyway, i reaaaally have to work on dispelling dark thoughts about what having to miss out on a 2011/12 start beyond having missed the 2010/11 start would do to me.

so, two further things:

i. does anyone have any advice on contacting my old professors, other than being appreciative of their time and apologetic for how late i'm leaving this? it's been three years, now, since i graduated -- worried i might have missed the boat in terms of goodwill and in being well-enough-remembered

ii. am i right in thinking that, were i to look for a secondary school teaching position in the states, a master's would be better than a british teaching qualification? i also hold a TEFL qualification and will have some experience in this field by the time i'd be looking, though not a great deal

does anyone have any advice on contacting my old professors, other than being appreciative of their time and apologetic for how late i'm leaving this? it's been three years, now, since i graduated -- worried i might have missed the boat in terms of goodwill and in being well-enough-remembered

depends on circs, but you contact them by contacting them. i had a four year gap between graduating and applying for my phd (sans MA) and it went ok.

re: ii. my understanding is that a PGCE is worthless in the states, and the masters is only useful if it's in education. this might be bollocks though. i assume you've got the visa situation covered, because you won't get a H1-B to teach in schools.

hm otm wrt contacting old professors. I wasn't academically stellar at undergrad but my tutor wrote what was apparently a stellar letter of recommendation for my MS.

So what happens if you decide you did the wrong MA program and need/want to go back. Ugh. I can't imagine more school and have no idea how I'd pay for it but I think I really want to go to nursing school. :/

what was your MA in?

Women's Health. But it's an MA and was designed to address the sociological aspects of Women's Health with the aim of training researchers, policy analysts, advocates etc. but I was one of the fist 6 ppl the year the program began and we were total guinea pigs. The directors had no idea what they were doing and neither did we and, well, it sounded/s a lot better on paper than in reality. I don't have the hard skills necessary to compete for a lot of research positions esp when the other applicants (mostly MPH ppl) so have those. Also, I realize now that I'm really interested in the clinical aspect of Women's Health and really really want to become a NP with a specialization in Women's Health. There's a program here just for that and it sounds amazing. It's just . . . more school and more money and I'm getting old etc. Bah. Maybe I should just take some stats courses and go into research it's not really that appealing to me.

Kate - this is the program I'm interested in: http://www.mghihp.edu/academics/nursing/advanced-practice-nursing/nursing-specialties/adult-womens-health.aspx