Anybody here on Veeky Forums pursue a PhD in English/any foreign language literature...

Anybody here on Veeky Forums pursue a PhD in English/any foreign language literature? If yes would love to know the following:
1. What school
2. What was a daily schedule like while earning the master's portion/the dissertation portion
3. What were your job prospects vs. how hard you worked to get a job lined up after graduation

Other urls found in this thread:

forum.thegradcafe.com/
wikiwand.com/en/Literary_science
youtu.be/5DmYLrxR0Y8
tractatuslogico-philosophicus.com/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

The Grad Cafe would be a better place to ask this, OP.

>forum.thegradcafe.com/

Hijacking your thread to ask this:
How does the study of language and literature even work in anglo countries? I see so many studying "English" - what does it actually mean? Do you study English as a language, English literature, or literature from all over the world translated into English?

In my country you EITHER study language, such as English or German or whatever - which means you study things like grammar, OR you study literature - and that is literature from all over the world, read in whatever language the students know.

I'm just confused why it's called "majoring in English".

sounds odd/untrue desu. what country are you from?

Meme PhD to trap you in the shithoke of academia leeching off of society.

You are alive in an age where your love of literature can be pursued without jumping through the silly ring of fire to get a PhD in it

What research can a PhD in English lit conduct that you yourself could not conduct on your own time?

Get a job that you don't hate, that provides freedom, and that puts food in your mouth. Use it to pursue your nonearning passion, and maybe something will come of it.

I know he is considered a living meme, but read Taleb "How to Legally Own Another Human Being"."

Sweden.
What is odd?

I haven't gotten any answers yet so I don't know what the deal is, but if it is the case that majoring in English means both studying grammar and reading literature from the Anglo world exclusively, that sounds hell of a lot more odd to me. Why limit the origins of the literature you read? And studying the language versus studying literature is just naturally two different fields...

Though apparently the concept of "literary science" is a European thing (?): wikiwand.com/en/Literary_science

This is what it's like in North America:

The study of English means predominantly English literature, but it can also sometimes encompass aspects of the history of the English language, linguistcs, semiotics, creative writing, and comparitive literature (i.e. literature in translation in various languages) largely depending on whether or not those subjects have their own department. If a university has a large population of foreign-language students, they might have a department dedicated to learning English in the same way you might learn any other second language at university. Often these classes are required for foreign students below a certain level of literacy in English.

Typically, we'll have departments called things like "French", "German", "Slavic studies", "East Asian studies", etc. These departsments usually encompass language, cultural studies, literature, and sometimes history. So we have a Slavic studies department that oversees courses in Russian literature, all of which is taught in translation, Russian as a second language, and Russian cultural studies, which include cross-listed courses on Russian cinema and history. I'm pretty sure that our French department, since we're in Canada, also teaches French literature not in translation.

We've got a major for fucking everything in the States. English majors, afaik, read works of any culture/tradition, but most likely read them in English. E.g. an English major might take a class called Japanese Literature.

Then there are majors like Spanish or German, which focus on the grammar and function of a specific language, with supplemental courses in literature, partly as an act of literary study and partly as ab act of language immersion. Iften these majors are lead-ins for folks who hope to be teachers.

Then some colleges will have Spanish literature or German literature as majors. In what way are these different than just Spanish or just German? Well, as far as I can tell, they are focused more on literary study within a specific tradition. Usually these are found in more liberal-artsy places.

Disclaimer: I was a math major, so I have no firsthand experience, just taking a guess based on what I've gathered.

In an English major, how much is Anglo literature versus comparative literature (translated foreign literature)? Is it the absolute majority?

I don't really see how you can divide it like that. You can't discuss Knut Hamsun without discussing and reading Dostoevski, for example. Which may bring you to Nietzsche, etc. Influences in literature doesn't stop where borders begins.

>We've got a major for fucking everything in the States. English majors, afaik, read works of any culture/tradition, but most likely read them in English. E.g. an English major might take a class called Japanese Literature.
I've found the courses in literature from other languages are usually cross-listed, not part of the English department, and even then it's only certain courses that the powers that be have approved. I'm an English major, and I have to take a certain number of credits with the ENG designation to get my degree, which is less than the number of credits I have to get for it in total. For example, I can take a course in Russian literature, which is offered by the Russian department, and a course on Don Quixote offered by the Spanish department, and both of those can count towards my degree, but if I then want to take a course on Proust under the French deparment, that can't be counted towards my major because I've already taken the max number of non-ENG courses. Or if I wanted to take a course on Dostoyevsky, I couldn't count that either if it wasn't one of the courses from the Russian department that was ordained by the heads of the English department.

I study literature and philosophy, and you wouldn't believe the sort of retarded shit I hear from these 'self-taught' people on Veeky Forums who actually think they have some modicum of literary knowledge. The truth of the matter is, the kind of learning and research you do on your own is absolutely trivial compared to the knowledge gained when studying something at an academic level. Literary comprehension and interpretation is not like knitting or dance moves or DIY construction. There is a legitimate complexity to reading and understanding books. I see people on the board who have 'read' a book, but seem to have missed the entire point of it altogether. They don't know even the most standard critical interpretations of the work, and can't even see below the very surface of the narrative beyond some generic summary of its basic themes and "meaning". Maybe my job prospects will suffer for these choices I've made, but at least I can read a book and actually absorb some of the substance from it, as opposed to it going in one ear and out the other. I actually feel bad for the people here who spend a lot of time reading books, and consider themselves interested in books, or believe themselves to be "learned", when in reality their knowledge is a tiny portion of what it could be if they were able to fully understand the books they read.

It really just depends on the department/university, and seems to do with how diverse the faculty's research interests are.

I'm applying to two English PhD programs, one has zilch for comparative lit, just a few postcolonial classes. The other has almost no English/American lit, almost entirely literature in translation.

Pick the second one, user. Don't be a pleb.
The world is more than some fucking story about a whale.

I want to pick the second, and I'm more likely to get into it, but the first has way more prestige and is higher ranked. Predictably.

I barely read any English/American lit though, so the first would actually be a bit more useful to me.

In first year, you'll probably take a course that deals with the essentials of western literature, which will mostly be in translation (Homer, Dante, Cervantes, Kafka... and so on). Most universities offer something like this. Other than that, pretty much every course offered by the English department is liable to teach English literature only. Same goes for literature of other languages. A good lecturer will outline the influence of authors who aren't on the syllabus effectively. The truth is that you very well can read Hamsun without reading Dostoyevsky, etc., especially if the course's overarching focus is on Scandinavian literature and its common themes, or whatever else, rather than the broad-strokes history of literature, which you are probably expected to be basically familiar enough with that you don't need to have those books on the syllabus.

I think there's more to it than you're allowing here. It's not just reading and research, but working your way into a discipline with a history. It can be and is a trap for many who jump into it with unrealistic expectations or just a strong passion for books, but it's not only that. Whether you want to call it literary study or literary criticism or whatever, it takes time and discipline to earn yourself a place within. I mean, someone who likes to build or is able to do odd jobs around the house cannot call himself a master carpenter or pumber, though a lot of the skills can be learned from books and youtube. In addition to knowing the discipline, you become an expert of the material and are granted some kind of authority within it. If someone wants to completely deny the value or utility of studying literature, that's a different thing to saying that someone at home with a computer and a library can do the same thing.

I am nearly complete my English PhD and can say categorically that what I've learned and done during my studies would not have been possible for me had I not done it. I'm sure there are people with enough will and inner-motivation to go through much of it privately, but I doubt most would. And that person still wouldn't have access to the people that the graduate student does. When I defend my thesis later this year, I will stand before five experts and prove to them that I deserve to be counted among them; that sort of testing and pressure is just not available to the autodidact.

One other thing that I forgot to mention in my other post... for me the greatest joy of the entire process of graduate studies has been teaching. For me, the pleasure of books and reading is tied inextricably to the pleasure and desire to teach. And to be able to teach at this level, you have to put in your time and effort on a PhD first.

>sitting in a $3000 dollar chair
Man, you really shot too close to the sun there.

Double dollars, because I'm abroad and you're degree didn't teach you the difference between USD and NTD.

>you're degree
>you're

English class is how to write essays class.

u're*

I'm nearing the completion of my PhD:

1. I won't be specific, but a major university in Ontario, Canada.

2. After the undergrad, the MA was a year of coursework. The first year of the PhD was more coursework. The second year was studying for comprehensive exams and preparing a moajor presentation for the department. The third-fifth years have been writing my dissertation, teaching, and auditing a couple other classes that were relevant to my research.

3. I don't want to stay in a university... or at least not large or major ones. I'm much more interested in teaching than scholarship, so my ideal placement would be a small, out of the way college or university. That being the case, I take my prospects to be better than average for a PhD grad. Trying ot get a place at a major school is very difficult and depends on how much you're able to distinguish yourself with publications before you graduate. My supervisor told me that 2 or 3 articles placed with decent or good journals is likely minimum to have a good shot at a job. It's tough work, but that's how it is right now.

This is taught in high schools here.

To be more specific then: how to write collegiate essays.

Yes, that too. A big part of high school is preparing for university.
Though of course, keep in mind we attend high school til we're 18.

>Study PhD in English
>Write long blocks of text with no clear structure

Honestly, I'm not surprised, you people are parasites and it makes me want to vomit when I realise that you people consider your work to be research.

Engineer reporting in btw, we're honestly better at communicating complex ideas than you parasites.

It depresses me that PhDs in English consider themselves to be on the same academic level as PhDs in CS, Physics, Maths, etc. You contribute nothing of value to society and you lower the prestige of academia.

I'm talking about United States universities here, at least the one I attended. The majority of the class was on writing essays well.

>you're

ELL OH ELL

>2 or 3 articles placed with decent or good journals

But there are no good journals in the humanities. You people are self-indulgent parasites.

Cool story, bro.

Kek fuck off mechanic, don't you have some toys to tinker with?

>Don't be a pleb.
But he's studying English, he's already a pleb.

tfw just finished a 3 year degree in Electronics & Comms Engineering and offered €45k a year to work as a Software Engineer.
tfw my BEngTech is worth more to the free market than your PhD
tfw a year of my work contributes more to the world than the entire lifetimes work that every English grad ITT will produce.

>communicating complex ideas, durr

And there's your misunderstanding of literary studies. Different forms of knowledge, different uses, different purposes, different methodologies. Why the hate? Why the competition?

Yes, my large salary affords me several toys. That's what I get for producing real, tangible work that society values.

Does it bother you worthless charlatans that you're basically just posh welfare leeches?

>Study a language
>A language is a tool for communication
>English grads can't communicate effectively.

Remind me why your field of study is beneficial to society?

So if you're convinced that you've already won in life, why act like such a prick? You're welcome to have the money and the affluent ladder-climbing life. For other people there are other rewards. I really don't think you need to feel so threatened.

>Why the hate?
It's normal to hate parasites.
>Why the competition?
The funding wasted on your """research""" could be better spent on fundamental scientific research. Instead most of the money for scientific research is funneled to research that we can immediately see the benefit of. Scientific and mathematical research is a victim of its own usefulness. While nobody expects research in the humanities to ever benefit anyone, to get government funding for STEM fields, you have to explain exactly how it is useful from day 1. While you wankers are allowed to research whatever you want, STEM researchers (real researchers) find it difficult to get funding to explore new areas where the applications are not yet known (and may not be known for several centuries).

>You're welcome to have the money and the affluent ladder-climbing life.
I am free to do that, I choose not to. I want to benefit society. You people devalue academia and leech off grants that could be better used in real research.

Let me clarify that there is some merit in the humanities, just not in the study of literature (aside from studying it as a way of understanding historic public opinion).

You are so far up your own ass if you believe what you wrote. I don't know what to tell you, there isn't much of a debate to be had if you legitimately believe that the knowledge you gain through your different literary lenses is somehow greater than what jndividuals take from reading a piece of literature. You are defining understanding as what people trained to think a certain way take out of a piece. Seems silly to me.

I'm not denying the value of studying literature, but I would say I am denying the value of studying it at the PhD level, precisely for the reasons you listed:: it mostly seems to add up to an appeal to and desire for authority. It seems like a desire to have your opinion elevated, to be part of an in-crowd.

I am not knocking your journey, and surely there is something to be said for the passion and work you put into understanding your subject. And maybe you do deserve some sort of authority on a subject you put so much time into. But at the same time it seems like a "tyranny of the experts" sort of deal, except with books instead of economics.

I didn't pursue a PhD but my fellow Classics majors always thought it was funny that the English majors were less read in English than we were, who studied Latin and Greek.

you make grad school sound like gaining seniority in a union

not that I doubt you come away from it a richer person overall even if you are a failure within the academic bureaucracy and can't network/play politics--even your most organized and robustly studied autodidact isn't going to put the necessary pressure on themselves nor have the feedback available to develop along academy standards; at best they will be an acerbic quasi-journalist or a fiction writer

I don't know though some of the adjuncts I've seen, when they speak of their thesis, talk as though they backed themselves into corners doing research they are dispassionate about

And I want to clarify that I am not trying to be a memeing STEMlord and elevate engineering, physical science, etc. iver literary study which is going on in the thread already. I'm talking more the institution I guess, and some of the argument spills over into STEM subjects the same way it applies to arts/humanities.

I guess my feeling is that I'd rather know my pal's opinion on a literary work or piece of art than some academic's. Now if that academic canwrire criticism that feel like your very smart friend giving his/her opinion on a piece, that sounds great.

But it seems like the knowledge produces by these niche lenses and methods feeds inward and upward further into the ivory tower rather than spilling outward, which seems like the opposite of what the humanities are all about.

Where I am (Canada), Humanities and Natural Sciences don't compete for funding for government grants and the sciences receive more funding. At the institutional level the humanities departments don't compete for funding with the stem departments, which receive more funding anyway. Less funding for the humanities and social sciences would not mean more for the natural sciences, it would mean less funding for education in general.

If you don't consider humanistic study and knowledge to be of use or value, I'm certainly not going to try convince you. I do wonder why you waste your time on a board ostensibly dedicated to the discussion of literature, though. Surely you have something productive you could be doing for society?

Who let the STEMfag in to shit all over this thread?

>Surely you have something productive you could be doing for society?
Convincing you faggots to kill yourselves while my code compiles is a good contribution to society.

>Does it bother you worthless charlatans that you're basically just posh welfare leeches?

Not as much as it should :^)

>I don't know though some of the adjuncts I've seen, when they speak of their thesis, talk as though they backed themselves into corners doing research they are dispassionate about

And this does happen a lot. Universities and English departments can be criticized for admitting too many students and flooding the market, or for not communicating better what a degree can do (or not do) for you. But I don't think this is in any way peculiar to English departments. STEM graduates may in general be more employable, but I've met plenty of PhDs in STEM who cannot find anything other than the entry-level research contractual research job and are also overqualified for anything else. Maybe it's just more pronounced a problem in the humanities?

>Who let the STEMfag in to shit all over this thread?
- The systems administrators of Veeky Forums.
- The various network engineers providing and maintaining the infrastructure used to access Veeky Forums
- The software and hardware engineers who built our computers and web browsers
- The physicists who discovered the properties of light allowing photonics researchers to develop fiber-optic cable
- The biologists and doctors who provided the medical knowledge to allow us to live this long and not die as infants

I just wish that the people who study the humanities would accept their inferiority and worship the STEM master race as they should

Let me explain this extremely slowly for you since you have an inferior mind that is only suitable for the humanities.

>Governments have limited budgets
>A certain proportion of that budget can go to education
>Any amount of the education budget that is wasted on the humanities (asides from teaching kids to read, write, understand the basic history of the world and communicate effectively) is money that could be allocated better by funding the STEM subjects that actually benefit and advance society and human knowledge.

- the writers of the Bible who established the religion that allowed society to prosper
- the media composers who have swayed generations from committing suicide through showing them they aren't alone

etc.

>Religion allowed society to prosper
>Media prevents suicide

Holy fuck humanitiesfags are retarded.

What sources do you use to dispute my claims? Are you well-read enough to provide even semi-decent rebuttals?

If anything more money needs to be put into the humanities. You know how fucking few students these days can read and especially write to an acceptable level???

>But it seems like the knowledge produces by these niche lenses and methods feeds inward and upward further into the ivory tower rather than spilling outward, which seems like the opposite of what the humanities are all about.

I agree with this... there is often a disconnect between the knowledge of the professor and their ability (or willingness) to put it to use in society or the community, but doesn't that happen in the sciences, also? A CS graduate may be able to contribute to the economy while boosting profits for apple or google, but how does a theoretical physician directly make society better? What about the billions that have gone into the LHC? If the pursuit of knowledge is not it's own end, academia is fucked, no?

The challenge for anyone with narrow specialist knowledge is using it to better society or the community.

I guess I'm wondering, then, why piss on literary studies so much, when similar critiques could be leveled elsewhere? Are the people just more obnoxious?

>Doesn't understand the burden of proof
Holy fuck the humanities must destroy minds.

Look, I'm studying software engineering, but there's no reason to be a cunt like this. You're an autist if you think et al isn't necessary for civilization to flourish. The things you mentioned help society survive, but it will not make a society flourish. Greater civilizations than ours have gotten by on a much weaker infrastructure.

>>Religion allowed society to prosper
check the prospering of society
>>Media prevents suicide
Check the current population

check and mate :^)

>but how does a theoretical physician directly make society better?
By providing Engineers with the knowledge they need to produce new products (think of GPS which relies on the theory of relativity).
>What about the billions that have gone into the LHC?
That's all related to nuclear power which is the safest and cleanest form of power. It would end many wars and make the world a more prosperous place if you fucking non-STEM parasites would let us use it more.

And I claimed that since education budgets are not reallocated but cut, a reduction of funding to the humanities and social sciences would not lead to an increase in funding for the sciences. It's not a zero sum game with govenment funding.

>X is true
>Therefore Y caused X
kek
>Greater civilizations than ours have gotten by on a much weaker infrastructure
There are no greater civilizations than ours.

So you think it's right to take money from the hands of decent hardworking members of society and use it to pay self-absorbed wankers to study the work of other self-absorbed wankers?

I think to be fair academic study of literature is a very formalized thing that proceeds according to a number of histories and historiographies of literature involving much more than the texts themselves. Cultural history and cultural historiography as well as cultural crit seem to go a long way towards informing meaning, and meaning is often placed as much outside of the text as within the text itself.

It is entirely feasible for a person to engage with literature in an entirely personal way outside of those traditions. And not even in a "close reading" sense. I'm very selective with what I read and often pursue secondary texts/crits and biographies, and take time to cultivate deep relationships with the lives and minds of the authors who speak to me on a personal level or produce aesthetically pleasing things. The two dozen or so authors whom I deeply respect and admire I feel entirely engaged with and far richer for exploring them to the level that I have.

Are you really placing society and literature on equal footing as variables? Fucking retarded STEMfag lmao.

Listen, I majored in applied math and I still think you are retarded.

For every relativity -> GPS there is theiry with no consequence beyond pure knowledge.

For every Internet or cellphone banking in Africa, there is some bullshit app looking to exit with millions.

The LHC has very very little to do with nuclear power, you popsci fucking retard. Almoat every research objective there is related to something fundamental, and even the strong nuclear force research programs there will have little bearing on practical applications like fusion or improved fission. 99% of what goes on at the LHC has nothing to do with nuclear power.

You fuckers are idiots.

>By providing Engineers with the knowledge they need to produce new products (think of GPS which relies on the theory of relativity).

I'm gonna have to go pick up my kids in a few minutes and won't be able to continue with this, but this is where my point was. The theoretical physicist is providing knowledge to others, who then make use of the knowledge in practical ways. The humanities professor is also providing knowledge to others to use in practical ways. What ways? Teaching, the arts, cultural production, communication, perhaps the sciences? The knowledges are different, but both, I think, are valid and valuable.

youtu.be/5DmYLrxR0Y8

I'm all outta time, kid. We'll have to do this again later.

>Ctrl+f "parasite"
>5 results

Is there a point to reading the Tractatus if I want to understand Wittgenstein's ideas? I heard that his ideas in the Philosophical Investigations basically supersede his earlier ones.

Also, GPS could readily function without knowledge of relativity.

You need not know the why to get the how of something.

You would sinply have a rule of thumb adjustment learned over time as you realize your measurement is consistently off by X.

Having theory helps simplify things, but the technology could exist without it.

Another example is fast inverse square root cropping up in code and becoming theoretically interesting after the fact.

Many things attributed to theoretical science could in fact exist without formal theory, especially when we are talking about technology.

Learning how to walk. Learning a language (young age). Telling jokes. How buildings stay standing. The way farmers predict the weather. Rutherford and the nucleus.

Experiment informs theory extremely often in life. Rapid trial and error.

"Why does it work? Well, I don't know but it does."

STEMfags miss this point more than anyone else does, which really fucking surprises me. Naive scientism.

For people who balk at creationism because the trial and error of evolution is so obvious, you readily accept the idea that theory is the architect of all progress.

Theory is a model of reality. It is not reality. There were trebuchets before there was Newton.

And before you say
>humanities fag hurr durr parasite

I majored in applied math, I dig most of the STEMfag shit, I'm all about the sciences. I just don't like this plague of anti-intellectual bullshit le redditism taking over the Internet.

I like you.

is math the only absolute and objective thing to ever exist??

As a fellow STEMfag I can safely say you must have gone to a shit university if you're able to come away feeling superior to the English majors.

>You: Hurr durr my education taught me how to use excel or any other skill that can be taught in a week on the job

1) It's very short. It's basically a long essay.

2) You're interested in it, and you're interested in its author.

3) It's the one book that he published during his life. This gives the book a certain literary, creative and historical value, in the sense that we know that he put it out at the time in more-or-less exactly the way that he had intended. Maybe he wanted to edit something in PI, for example, but ran out of time. Your stated goal is to get Witty's thought, and since people change their minds as part of a historical process, it can be useful to know what they thought earlier, to get their life-arc. To understand a person's, or historical figure's ideas does not necessitate that we focus only on the latter part of that person's life. The better approach is to get the whole life-arc if you're up for it, and go from there.

4) The book contains a bit of two-valued logic and math which it is useful for Veeky Forums types interested in philosophy to go through if they haven't, to round themselves out a bit. Wittgenstein was doing much the same thing as other logicians of the period (truth tables, truth functions etc), so it's not /original/ as-such, but you get it in a succinct book format. It also gives you a flavor of what "muh Analytics" tend to do, going forward (formulas).

5) The book takes a cute literary, mystical swipe at the end.

Basically I'm suggesting to you that there is no good reason whatsoever for you not to read it, user, based on what you've told us. My one autistic complaint is that the numbering scheme has a very early inconsistency, as 2.etc gets started. Just ignore it and power through it as it's presented, in order.

tractatuslogico-philosophicus.com/

>thinking 45k€ is a good wage, starting

Contrary to popular belief fast food does NOT actually require a degree. Just get a degree for something to make a living and study literature all your life.

that's a decent wage, go try to flaunt yourself at a bar so real people can ignore you

lol id graduate 55k€ starting, if im unlucky. I'm a business major

further evidence that you should take that user's advice

Idgaf user :D

How many of those people were PHD holders?