Hello, all. I know. I've been MIA for a while. But whatever my reasons (varied), please accept my apologies for neglecting you.
Today, I'd like to ramble on about what it's like to look for a grad school. As usual, I will write in a semi-coherent manner using organization which almost but not quite forms a coherent whole. I like to think of this characteristic of my writing as "part of my charm."
As many of you know (*cough* Jeff), my selection of graduate institution is apparently fickle. I was convinced for a spell that I must move to Minnesota (Twin Cities) because they had an outstanding Engrish program and because Jeff and Claire (and occasional teenagers) are there, and I'd really love to live near them again, if only for a little while. Then I got to thinking about pursuing a form of hybrid PdD--studying the development of the essay and current forms, or somesuch--and became enamored of the University of Iowa. Iowa doesn't offer resident tuition to military (it's one of the few states that doesn't) and was therefore a bit out of my price range, and I continued to rethink my focus. The whole mess dropped off my radar for a while, because...you know...that semester-teaching-grading mess kicked in. Then, about a month (?) ago, my boss mentioned I might consider a degree in composition/rhetoric.
He wasn't dictating my interests. Far from it. He merely suggested an option I honestly didn't believe I had. My department head strives to pad her department with PhDs in literature of some form because she believes she has enough creative writers, and thus baldly encourages ("It's just a suggestion, but let's not forget who's making it") PhDs in literature for all her PhD hopefuls. I simply wasn't aware a PhD in the teaching of college composition and rhetoric was a possibility for me. Much to my surprise (and others in my position), she gave her blessing to my boss's proposal.
I've spent a great deal of time since then reading about composition and rhetoric to ensure I want to specialize in that area, and I'm happy with and interested in what I find. It's a good fit. Thus, I began looking for schools.
Searching for a school is new to me. I've never looked for one; I've simply attended a school I happened to be living by when I decided to go to school. Call me naive, but in my view, one school was as good as the next if you were committed to learning (I still think this attitude is predominately true regarding undergraduate schools). I went to the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs when I first left the service because it was in the same town. I returned to school at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington because--yes--I was living there when I decided to finish my undergrad education. I spent a poorly-advised period pursing an online MBA at Touro University International when I was at Vandenberg AFB, because the Air Force paid 75% of the tuition and Touro paid the remaining 25%, I thought an MBA was good for officership, and the school was incredibly convenient. Fortunately, I quickly became disillusioned with the lack of education I was getting. It isn't a bonafide "degree mill," but it is very close. It wasn't teaching me anything. I quit two courses short of "graduating" and enrolled in the Master's of Liberal Arts at the University of Auburn, Montgomery. I continue to be thankful for my own common sense. The Air Force will pay for one master's degree, but not the second. As long as I didn't complete the former one, I could use tuition assistance--now 100%--to pay for the Auburn degree, which I did. I worked hard (something which never happened with Touro) and earned my degree, which is as it should be.
Now I have some interesting problems*. As you may have guessed, I have very good academic credentials...sorta. :) I'm generally a 4.0 student, except when I'm not (I occasionally have the prof I can't figure out how to please, but I'm still a good student nonetheless), and I have very competitive GRE scores. For PhD programs, I'm additionally juicy because I come fully-funded--living expenses and all--and I have fairly extensive teaching experience and maturity, to boot. My drawbacks? First, I have a Bachelor's of Arts in English with a focus in Creative Writing and a Master's of Liberal Arts in History. I'm humanities-focused, but most PhD hopefuls have carefully built a solid base of literature expertise, with a BA in English Lit and a MA in English. My "diversification" is a drawback in most PhD English programs. Second, I don't really have a second language.
* I readily admit these are problems many people would give their eyeteeth to have.
Ah, yes. The language requirement. Let's chat about this a moment, shall we?
Almost every PhD program in English with the possible exception of Cambridge requires something on the continuum of "proficiency in one foreign language" to "fluency in one or proficiency in two." This is standard.
I have some French. I have it merely because I was required to complete a year (or maybe it was just a semester--I don't recall) in French for my bachelor's degree. I continued because I was charged nothing extra to take 15 hours instead of 12 and because I enjoyed the language and wanted to learn it (it helped that was I spending my summers in Belgium, I suppose).
As of 1999, however, I have not taken a French course (I graduated), nor have I gone back to Belgium. Most of my French skills have slipped considerably. I take heart in the fact that they're there. Just...dormant. I can revive them with a fair amount of ease. (It also helps that two fluent French speakers are in my department and happy to help.)
As I flipped through PhD program requirements for hours at a time over the weekend, I found myself wondering why PhD programs require foreign languages. I know what they say, of course: they say proficiency with a foreign language demonstrates your ability to do scholarly work in your field. However. I know of no average English literature scholars (let alone composition or rhetoric scholars) who incorporate work in a non-English language in their work. The occasional English lit scholar will specialize in literature translation, admittedly, but one must be fluent in the language to do this--not simply "proficient." (Also, IMO, "literature translation" deserves to be a specialized program in itself, 'tis so filled with theory and nuance.) I was thinking the language requirement had something to do with the idyllic "classical education" (and it may), when I asked a friend what she thought. She paused for a bit, then said, "I think it's a classist and elitist requirement."
Her response rang true for me, probably because I was increasingly annoyed that I was looking for a program in which I could get the best composition/rhetoric training and was limited by a requirement that had nothing to do with my desired specialty. Most people in the US don't get a second language. Increasingly, high schools don't require it (mine didn't, so I didn't take the courses)*. But then, I find myself thinking this: doesn't an elite education have the right--even a duty--to be elitist? The coin has two sides, you see.
* Yeah. I could have, right? To not do so was my choice. Yes...but no, because how could I have known? I suspect that the vast majority of folks who speak several languages didn't choose it. They were either raised in a multilingual environment, given no choice in high school, or knew from a very young age they were going to college and planned from grade school to be able to meet requirements that would get them a shot at the best colleges. My upbringing was such that going to college was the farthest thing from my mind; I was raised to be a good wife.
All the same, the "so you can do scholarly research in another language" explanation for this requirement is undoubtedly disingenuous. I've long listened to academics make jokes about the language requirements they had to meet for their terminal degrees and the ways they met them. A common way is an intensive summer program in translation of the language, followed by a test--pass or fail. Really. You'll take a five-week course in translation of the language into English and be proficient? Please.
I'll take a moment to admit I do find utility in learning a foreign language. You can't begin to understand how another culture thinks until you've tried to learn their language, because their important ideas and how they work with them is encapsulated in their language. Second, attempting to learn a foreign tongue gives us an appreciation of the difficulties of trying to learn how other cultures think and communicate. In our global climate, where most people speak our tongue as a second language, such an understanding is often crucial to our appreciation for them and our compassion for their linguistic shortcomings. Third, our attempt (at least) to learn another tongue shows respect for them and their culture. However, while I think learning another language is useful in and of itself, I still fail to understand why it's required at the university level.
Oh! And here's another problem*: try telling the faculty at your college of choice that you are interested in their program and can you possibly finish a PhD in three years? The standard response is one of offense and affront. Apparently, the mean years to completion of a PhD is a point of pride, somehow reflecting the quality of the education gained.
* But all of us military PhD hopefuls hurdle this one. Somehow.
I exchanged several emails with the director of graduate studies at Oregon and the director of the composition/rhetoric program. The comp/rhet man said the school would work with me to meet my deadlines. They'd been courteous and professional in the exchange. So, I went out there for a conference. I met Jim Crosswhite and John Gage at the conference; both are big players in the UofO comp/rhet program. They were encouraging and helpful. Gage made arrangements for me to meet the director of grad studies, Liz Bohls. At the appointed time, I stepped into her office and introduced myself. She sat in her chair, turned slightly away, arms crossed tightly over her chest with her left hand flicking crazily, looked over her glasses at me and said curtly, "What can I do for you?"
I was a bit taken aback, to say the least. This was a person I'd had reason to expect would be at least friendly. She didn't extend her hand to shake mine, or any such greeting, another minor point of body language which puts me off. I looked at her for a moment--the expression, that nervous hand--and responded, "Thank you very much for making time to meet with me. I appreciate your thorough responses via email, but I still have a couple of questions I'm still fuzzy on."
She said quickly, and with obvious surprise, "So you're still planning to apply here?"
I said (somewhat confused), "Yes."
She said, "It would be irresponsible of me to give you any hope that you could complete a PhD in three years. It really isn't possible." Her works came so fast that she verbally stumbled a couple of times.
I sat there dumbfounded for a bit. Who was this person? If she felt so passionately about this, why had she not mentioned it at all in our email correspondence? I looked at my notes--all the questions I had to ask--then looked at her, then gazed at the wall for a moment. I admit I was on the verge of getting up and walking out at that point. I was confused--but...furious. I wasn't sure why yet, but I was. Instead of walking out, though, I said amiably, "Well, I'll go ahead and ask you my questions, anyway."
I began to ask questions: stuff about which courses were allowed in the grad courses, pretty much. She was friendly enough and helpful with that, but the issue of the three-year PhD came back up. I don't recall what prompted it, except that the entire conversation was focused on that end point. She said again that a three-year PhD really wasn't possible. I said, "I work with several people who completed a PhD in three years, though."
She said--snidely, if I may--"But from what sort of schools?"
Ahhhhh. There was the bug up her butt. I had unwittingly insulted Oregon.
I said, "Well...my boss finished his degree in Irish studies from the University of Michigan."
Her expression changed, almost imperceptibly (grudgingly?) to guarded appreciation. "Michigan," she said, nodding slightly (or maybe I imagined it).
"And my department head," I continued, "finished her PhD at the University of Washington."
Another slight change: "Washington."
I said, "Admittedly, many come back ABD [All But Dissertation]."
She jumped on this: "Ohhh! That explains it!...."
I interrupted. "No. Don't misunderstand. The ones I just mentioned finished in three years. I mean they graduated." She allowed at this point that a PhD student who didn't have to teach might have a bit more time to work on coursework, etc.
What I didn't add was that my boss has seven children. And my department head finished hers ahead of schedule. And I left out--I can't believe it!--Oxford, Cornell, Stanford, University of Chicago, and Berkeley colleagues who also did the deed in three years or less.
Before I left, I said this to her: "Let me be blunt. I can easily pick a college with minimal requirements where I can be virtually assured of a three-year completion. Instead, I've chosen a college from which I believe I can get a good education. I understand a three-year PhD is difficult, but in the end, I won't care so much how much time I took to finish; I'll always care how good my education was. That's why I chose Oregon."
This was the only point I believe she relaxed and became quasi-friendly to me in the whole ordeal, which lasted less than 15 minutes. She smiled and said, "Well, I'm looking forward to seeing your application."
I honestly don't know if I'll send an application to Oregon now. My brief encounter with her was only part of it; the rest is based on something my boss told me today. He pointed out that 2nd tier universities will often have much more demanding graduation standards than 1st tier universities because they're insecure and trying to prove themselves. He's right. Harvard, Princeton, etc, require precious little actual coursework for grad students; the focus is on the dissertation. 2nd tier schools, however--like Oregon--may require up to 25 courses at the PhD level, then bicker over what is included in your dissertation.
In my opinion, there are three reasons the 1st tier schools have a shorter time to completion of the PhD than the 2nd tier schools: (1) they get more talented and driven students, (2) they take better care of their students financially, and (3) they don't require beaucoup courses before beginning the doctoral work which is the end-all-be-all of the entrance into the professional academic community: the dissertation itself.
I'm currently looking closely at the University of Arizona (which I learned this morning is the alma mater of one of our distinguished civilian faculty; he has fond memories of the school). They are ranked far higher than Oregon according the US News and World Report for English programs and they responded to my query within 24 hours with a definite "Yes! We happily work with non-MA matriculated students and have worked with military on 3-year degree programs before; it's possible! Come on."
I'm also looking at Penn State. Nothing yet from them, though. Still looking around. I'm excited and frustrated in varying degrees. In other words, considering the activity, situation normal.
d
