success in academia involves a lot of failure

When I think about my career so far, I’m humbled by the generosity of friends and colleagues. I’m also acutely aware of the odds stacked against anyone who tries to enter this profession. My own success, such as it is, was the direct result of a lot of failure. Maybe there is someone out there who succeeds in academia without failing. I am not that person. I want to talk about my experience in the hope that it smashes a few unhelpful myths about academia, publishing, and job-seeking. This is my version of a CV of failures.

Failing to get into grad school

As a senior in college, I applied to MPhil and PhD programs. Most of them rejected me. Programs that rejected me were Brown University, Harvard University, the Marshall Scholarship, Stanford University, University of Connecticut, University of Michigan, and University of Oxford. New York University and the University of Virginia waitlisted me. The University of Cambridge accepted me but offered no funding. The University of California–Berkeley accepted me but offered only partial funding.

When I applied to graduate school, I knew almost no one in my field personally. I was in no position to judge whose interest my application might pique. In hindsight, I can rationalize my two fully funded acceptances in terms of shared interests with particular scholars. But even now, I can discern no pattern in the programs that rejected me. I share interests with faculty at those programs, too. There are too many qualified applicants for PhD programs. They have to reject almost everyone, every year.

Failing to publish

I’ve submitted many essays to many academic journals and general-audience venues. About half of them got rejected. Journals and magazines that have rejected my work are the Atlantic, Boston GlobeChronicle of Higher EducationExemplaria, GuardianJournal of English and Germanic Philology (twice), Mediaevalia (after I revised and resubmitted), Mediaeval Studies (after I revised and resubmitted), Medium ÆvumMilton Quarterly (after I revised and resubmitted), Modern Philology (three times), Notes and QueriesNottingham Medieval StudiesPartial AnswersPMLAPhilological QuarterlySpeculumSlate, Studia Neophilologica, and Washington Post. I am probably forgetting some. This is just what I could pull together with e-mails and letters I saved.

Poetry publishing is a whole other story. Around 99% of my submissions have been rejected. Magazines, presses, and prize contests that have rejected my poetry include the 1913 Prize for First Books, AAAP Walt Whitman Award, Agni, Akron Poetry Prize, American Poetry Review, Anabiosis Press, Barrow St. Book Contest, Bat City Review (invited to submit; still rejected), Best American eXperimental Writing, Black Lawrence Press, Black OceanBombay GinBoston Review, Burning Deck, Canarium Books, Carolina Wren Press, Chicago Review, Cider Press, Columbia Poetry Review, Cooper Dillon Press, Copper Canyon Press, Cricket Online Review, Elixir Press, Fence, Four Way Books, Front Porch, Futurepoem, Kenyon Review, Krupskaya Press, Letter Machine Editions, Mantis, National Poetry Series, New England Review, New Issues Poetry Prize, New Rivers Many Voices Project, The New Yorker (twice), Paper Nautilus, Paper Nautilus Vella Chapbook Contest, Octopus Books, PloughsharesPoetry (twice), RattleRedivider (at least four times: I’ve lost count), Ruth Lilly Poetry Fellowships (twice), Sparkwheel Press, Tupelo Press, Ugly Duckling Presse, University of Wisconsin Press, Washington Square Review, Wesleyan University Press (I am a former intern of WUP; I was invited to submit; still rejected), and the Yale Series of Younger Poets.

I don’t think I’m fifty times better at academic writing than poetry. Rather, I’m competing against fifty times as many qualified people when I submit a poem as opposed to an essay on the meter of Piers Plowman. Also, the social world of poetry publishing (to the extent that it exists) has always puzzled me, even though I interned at a prestigious poetry press in college. I probably lack the right network. I’ve never earned an MFA or lived in New York, the two typical routes to fame and fortune in creative writing. Academia is very insular, but in a way that I’ve become accustomed to navigating.

The real story, though, is how much failure is built into the successes themselves. Almost all my ultimately successful academic and public writing submissions received a revise-and-resubmit. They needed major revisions before acceptance, and usually minor revisions after that. In my experience, success in publishing is about perseverance and developing a thick skin. Very often, I needed to pick my essay up off the floor and submit it somewhere else. Usually, doing so paid off.

Here’s a sampling of negative readers’ comments on my submissions: “An anachronistic supposition like [an important stepping-stone in my argument] does not in my opinion add to the credibility of the argumentation”; “[The essay is] evasively written at all the crucial points/building blocks of its argument, with some special pleading”; “The essay begins with an incoherent and ungrounded discussion of a vaguely defined topic”; “I very much anticipated that I would recommend this essay for publication when I sat down to write this review. But a closer look. . .”; “What the author asks us to consider is that [my main thesis]. It is this point that the author does not demonstrate”; and my favorite, “Comments on [the primary subject of the essay] are nonsense.” One reviewer dismissed an essay in four sentences, two of which consisted of quotations from the essay! All of these comments refer to essays that subsequently appeared in print.

Failing to get a job

As many can attest, job-seeking involves the most failure of all. In 2013/2014, I applied to 12 tenure-track jobs and 24 post-doctoral fellowships or Visiting Assistant Professor positions. Two of the tenure-track job searches were suspended over winter break. All but one of the remaining 34 opportunities were offered to someone else.

I received 3 MLA interviews, 1 on-campus interview for a post-doc, and 2 campus visits. The result was 1 offer of employment. I was rejected without an interview for jobs at Duquesne University, Kenyon College, Massachusetts College of Art and Design, Pace University, Stony Brook University, University of Rochester, and Wellesley College. I was rejected without an interview for post-docs or VAPs at Brown University, Boston University, Columbia University, Dartmouth College (two), Davidson College, Duke University, Georgia Institute of Technology, Harvard University (two), Johns Hopkins University (two), MIT, Northwestern University, Princeton University, Rutgers University (two), Williams College, University of Chicago, University of Michigan, University of Toronto, Washington University in St. Louis, and Wesleyan University (my alma mater).

Ultimately, the most important statistic is 1 job offer, not 33 rejections. At the time, of course, each ‘no’ landed like a ton of bricks. (Even this is an idealization: many departments don’t take the time to send rejection letters.) When I applied to these opportunities, I did not have extensive knowledge of each department. Only by failing 33 times was I able to get into the one room that changed everything. Looking back, I can explain the outcome in terms of fit. But I lacked the necessary familiarity to judge fit in 2013/2014. In fact, I experienced a perceptual failure that is only funny in hindsight: of my three MLA interviews, I thought the one with my current department went the worst.

Coda

Now that I’m a graduate faculty member, an editor of an academic journal, and a voting member in faculty hiring decisions, I have participated in these processes of selection from the other side of the table. I’m here to tell you: it’s not you, it’s us. The way to succeed (within the parameters of the many challenges you can’t control, such as the underfunding of education in this country, the shift to part-time labor in the university, etc.) is to produce the best work you can and keep seeking out professional opportunities. The way to fail is to treat failure like the end of the story instead of the beginning.

Tl;dr: academic careers are digressive, and success involves a lot of failure.

*Meta-failure: This blog post has smashed my website’s record for single-day page views.

**For criticism of this CV of failures and the genre as a whole, see here and here.

the dangers of echo chambers in newsrooms

Two days ago, Nicholas Kristof published “The Dangers of Echo Chambers on Campus.” As you might expect from a New York Times op-ed, it’s typical of public discourse surrounding its topic. Kristof argues that campuses are liberal bubbles in need of bursting. This is, in fact, what conservatives have been saying for decades; the difference is that Kristof pitches the argument as avuncular advice, liberal to liberal. “Too often, we embrace diversity of all kinds except for ideological,” he admonishes his readers in the first person plural.

Never mind that his sole example, Oberlin College, is wildly unrepresentative of actually existing American higher education. It’s more similar to Harvard, where Kristof was an undergraduate, or Oxford, where Kristof was a Rhodes Scholar, or Boston College, where I teach.

Never mind that focusing on disembodied ideology at Oberlin, where 80% of students are white and 89% do not qualify for Pell grants, allows Kristof to avoid addressing the underrepresentation of people of color and poverty- and working-class people (these categories of course intersect) on elite campuses and, correspondingly, the experiences and opportunities afforded to these people on less well-funded campuses.

Besides, in a rhetorical irony that is quintessentially 2016, the ostensible targets of the argument have already done the introspection being recommended. I attended Wesleyan University. During my time there, the relationship between campus discourse and public discourse was a constant topic of conversation. Ideological battles on campus consciously played out against the backdrop of a public sphere that derided places like Oberlin and Wesleyan as liberal bubbles. The ‘real world’ loomed large, not only as a rhetorical ploy in difficult conversations, but also as the reality everyone would face after graduation. Student activists are already doing the hard work that Kristof blithely recommends as if for the first time.

Kristof’s piece has generated significant pushback, probably more than it deserves. It isn’t even the first time he himself has made the argument. I want to suggest one reason for the disproportionate response: Kristof’s chiding, can’t-we-all-just-get-along tone epitomizes a news media bubble whose default mode is Everything Is OK. It’s the same bubble in which Donald Trump stood no chance of winning a presidential election.

Everything Is Not OK. A few weeks ago, police used water cannons on Dakota Access Pipeline protesters in Cannon Ball, ND, in subfreezing weather, injuring hundreds. Whether you find yourself on the side of the police or the protestors, the violent confrontation has to indicate that Everything Is Not OK.

Betsy DeVos, the appointee for education secretary, rose to political prominence by creating so many charter schools in Detroit that the quality of education at both charter schools and public schools deterioriated. Whether you support or oppose the charter school movement, the appointment of a billionaire lobbyist with a questionable track record and no experience as a teacher or school administrator has to indicate that Everything Is Not OK.

Scott Pruitt, the appointee to head up the Environmental Protection Agency, denies the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change for political reasons. There may be room for debate on the precise extent of climate change and the most effective political response to it, but Scott Pruitt is not in the room. He’s not even in the building. Regardless of your position on energy reform or the epistemological limits of modern science, the appointment of a dedicated opponent of scientifically informed policy to head the EPA has to indicate that Everything Is Not OK.

All of these developments deserve more media coverage than they’re getting. Meanwhile, Kristof argues that it’s liberals at Oberlin who are standing in the way of an ideologically robust public discourse. Only within the news media bubble could such a notion appear as a hard truth.

My interest in public discourse in 2016 grows out of my research on medieval English political prophecy. In fifteenth-, sixteenth-, and seventeenth-century Britain, prophetic discourse furnished common ground for the most and least powerful members of society. It took the form of social protest but was soon co-opted by elites as political propaganda. Prophetic writing crowned kings and got everyday people killed. The ideological underpinnings of prophecy, its forms of epistemic closure, can be obvious to us now, because prophecy comes from a political world we no longer inhabit. The ideological underpinnings of public discourse in 2016 can be more difficult to ascertain. An op-ed seeming to recommend the piercing of an echo chamber might turn out to be yet another reverberation in an echo chamber.

In my experience, echo chambers on campus mostly don’t exist, or if they do they are not dangerous in any widely accepted definition of the word. Echo chambers in our institutions of mass media, and our collective inability or unwillingness to recognize them, are as dangerous as ever.