Study in blue

[j4]

Seeing hoiho's enthusiasm for his PhD application, and reading marnameow's post about wanting to study again, is really bringing home to me how much I miss studying. I originally wanted to do postgrad work in English, but my tutors talked me out of it (on the grounds that people only stood a chance of getting funding if they got a First, and they didn't think I should count on getting one); so I left, and got a job, and now I'm still in that job, and I feel as though I've achieved precisely nothing in the 3+ years I've been doing it.

The problem is, I don't think I'd know how to study any more. And I certainly wouldn't know how to begin writing about my "current research interests" as I'd have to do if I wanted to apply to do postgrad study -- basically, looking at the application forms and requirements, I need to be doing research in order to start doing research. Which means I should be doing it in my spare time while I'm working ... and I simply don't have the energy. Which, of course, means I'm not capable of doing postgrad study anyway: if I can't make the time/energy to study now, there's no way I could do a postgraduate degree.

I have so many ideas for things I want to write about, but I no longer seem to be able to put them into words. And if I do try to put them into words, the ideas seem to shrink and shrink until they're the kind of ideas that 14-year-olds would scorn to bother with for GCSE coursework.

I wish I could just make myself accept the fact that I'm not an intellectual, and never will be. Yes, I was passable at my schoolwork; that doesn't mean I can compete with adults. ... I wish I could stop thinking altogether.

Comments

[j4.livejournal.com]

I mean, given your degree, she can hardly say "this girls thick, and couldn't hack it" can she?

Well, she could say "This girl couldn't really stand up to the pressure of academic study, she had to redo a year of her degree; she was okay when people were telling her what to write but she's not capable of self-directed study, and she doesn't really have anything to offer in the way of original thought/research." You don't need to be original to get an u/grad degree.

People seldom give poor references unless they are really well deserved.

I suspect I'd have got short shrift if I'd told you that when you were worrying about references.

[hoiho.livejournal.com]

You don't need to be original to get an u/grad degree.

You do need to be good to get a first.

And I got my post grad without much in the way of originality.

I suspect I'd have got short shrift if I'd told you that when you were worrying about references.

Perhaps; but then, my MSc was demonstrably piss-poor...

[j4.livejournal.com]

You do need to be good to get a first.

But good at what? You need to be good at writing essays which somebody has basically handed to you on a plate. In fact, you can get away with being only reasonably good at that, and then being lucky in the exam with what questions are offered. You don't necessarily have to be any good at the things which make a good researcher.

[hoiho.livejournal.com]

If that's really the case, then they're giving out firsts out in a way thay didn't 20 years ago. Simple knowledge of facts and ideas should not get you a first.

[j4.livejournal.com]

they're giving out firsts out in a way thay didn't 20 years ago.

I thought it was pretty much taken as read now that standards have slipped so far as to make modern education worthless, and that any fool can get a degree?

("Modern education", of course, begins 3 years after one left full-time education...)

[hoiho.livejournal.com]

Quite so: why d'you think I've waited so long before looking at a PhD?

[j4.livejournal.com]

Given the rate of standards slippage and the elapsed time between present day and the end of your full-time education, I calculate that a modern "PhD" will be approximately equivalent to what I believe was called the "Eleven Plus" in your day...

(Yes, yes, I know, you didn't do the Eleven Plus, because Scottish education is BETTER THAN THAT.)

[hoiho.livejournal.com]

Not better, just different.

[vyvyan.livejournal.com]

The criteria for awarding Firsts for exam essays at Cambridge that I've seen (in ASNaC and Linguistics) do emphasize originality. I remember when I was co-marking essays with another linguistics chap a few years ago, we often agonised over whether we could reasonably give a borderline First to an essay which was thoroughly competent, accurate, well-illustrated, well-organised, copious and highly relevant to the question, but which didn't show any evidence of original thought! We usually ended up giving them very high 2.1s instead, unless the question was particularly difficult.
So unless English at Oxford is utterly different, I'd have expected your First indicated that you demonstrated originality in your exams.