I’ve been thinking more about Ruby’s decision to apply for the early modern MSt, and how - to be frank - utterly ridiculous it is. She doesn’t like the period; it’s never been her literature of choice; we know this. She’s very obviously applied because it’s less competitive to get into compared to some of the other MSt courses. I realise these are not original points, but just recapping here before moving on.
The issue is that she is SO fixated on going to Oxford that she’s screwed herself over in terms of doing something she might actually like, academically. Feel free to skip my entire post if you’re not interested in deeply nerdy waffling about alternate options she could have (should have) taken.
Ruby will struggle to get good marks on the MSt, because she’s one of the weaker members of the cohort. She did a less rigorous degree and got a lot of help, whereas others in the cohort will have done more rigorous degrees without leaning on a friend the way Ruby did (and will also have genuine, independent interest in the period).
She will probably try to compensate for being at the weak end by (1) slogging and (2) sucking up to the dons, but neither will work quite as well at masters level. However, she’s canny enough to weaponise her mental health for extensions etc (I’m not concerned about mentioning this because I don’t believe it’s giving her ideas - she knows), and Oxford will grant those. She knows how to advantage herself.
If she underperforms in the masters, she will have a much more difficult time being accepted for a DPhil at Oxford (even though she is massively advantaged by not needing to win competitive funding, like most students). What she could have done - but didn’t because she just wanted to get to Oxford as quickly as possible - was do a masters in something that actually interested her (children’s literature), and where it was thus much more likely she would get higher marks. That would also have given her a more focused and refined application for DPhil at Oxford, along with, ironically, a stronger academic profile, and she could’ve gained a doctoral place for four years!
There absolutely are academics at Oxford who are interested in children’s literature and would have considered supervising her, if she’d presented a strong DPhil application with high masters marks in a relevant field. I’m not saying who they are because I refuse to help her, haha.
But her chances of successfully applying to write a doctoral thesis on something she would genuinely like (twentieth century literature for children/girls, mostly) are if anything hurt, not helped, by the MSt she is doing. It makes her look indecisive and academically unfocused. The appropriate MSt would have been the modern one, but I’m guessing she felt she wouldn’t get in, and was intimidated by the content. You don’t study modern and contemporary literature at a top university without engaging properly with literary theory and challenging texts. That’s why she should have done a focused masters somewhere else, aimed to nail that with high marks, and then gone for Oxford. But oh well. Too late now.
The issue is that she is SO fixated on going to Oxford that she’s screwed herself over in terms of doing something she might actually like, academically. Feel free to skip my entire post if you’re not interested in deeply nerdy waffling about alternate options she could have (should have) taken.
Ruby will struggle to get good marks on the MSt, because she’s one of the weaker members of the cohort. She did a less rigorous degree and got a lot of help, whereas others in the cohort will have done more rigorous degrees without leaning on a friend the way Ruby did (and will also have genuine, independent interest in the period).
She will probably try to compensate for being at the weak end by (1) slogging and (2) sucking up to the dons, but neither will work quite as well at masters level. However, she’s canny enough to weaponise her mental health for extensions etc (I’m not concerned about mentioning this because I don’t believe it’s giving her ideas - she knows), and Oxford will grant those. She knows how to advantage herself.
If she underperforms in the masters, she will have a much more difficult time being accepted for a DPhil at Oxford (even though she is massively advantaged by not needing to win competitive funding, like most students). What she could have done - but didn’t because she just wanted to get to Oxford as quickly as possible - was do a masters in something that actually interested her (children’s literature), and where it was thus much more likely she would get higher marks. That would also have given her a more focused and refined application for DPhil at Oxford, along with, ironically, a stronger academic profile, and she could’ve gained a doctoral place for four years!
There absolutely are academics at Oxford who are interested in children’s literature and would have considered supervising her, if she’d presented a strong DPhil application with high masters marks in a relevant field. I’m not saying who they are because I refuse to help her, haha.
But her chances of successfully applying to write a doctoral thesis on something she would genuinely like (twentieth century literature for children/girls, mostly) are if anything hurt, not helped, by the MSt she is doing. It makes her look indecisive and academically unfocused. The appropriate MSt would have been the modern one, but I’m guessing she felt she wouldn’t get in, and was intimidated by the content. You don’t study modern and contemporary literature at a top university without engaging properly with literary theory and challenging texts. That’s why she should have done a focused masters somewhere else, aimed to nail that with high marks, and then gone for Oxford. But oh well. Too late now.
this has to be the worst to date
stinginess 
(Not trying to say you can’t post or anything, but this is a weirdly defensive response to my post and you seem Very Invested.)
Mustn’t be naughty with the other girls on Tattle or might have to write lines in detention! (Rubert’s take.)
