poliscar

Hiring committees & grant adjudicators do not know, or care, about the minutiae of your subfield. It doesn't matter if your program is the #1 place for 17th century British print-culture (etc) if the people evaluating your application work in different subfields. An advisor who is a superstar to you may be a completely unrecognizable name for the people judging your work. You can subdivide "top tens" are much as you want, until you have little niche specializations for which top-30/40 schools are superior, but when it comes down to it you can't assume that other people have the same specialized knowledge. As an example, a recent job search at my institution was for an ass. prof in the modern/contemporary art of a specific Asian country. Because the institution did not already have a specialist in this area, the committee was comprised of, amongst other, a Western modern/contemporary scholar, a Historian specializing in that country and period (but with basic knowledge of the Art Historical context), and an Art Historian working on a different Asian country and period. Across almost all contexts, this is the reality of job searches and grant selection processes. Because of this, evaluations of a candidate most often will turn to wider rankings and systems of prestige/quality. Princeton or Berkeley will always signify quality across different scholarly demographics, whereas Indiana or Emory will not. Is this fair? No. Is your deep, specific knowledge being recognized? No, potentially not. Yet that's how things work; as soon as you retreat into your subfield, and assume that people will evaluate you based on that, you're shooting yourself in the foot. No one is attacking "lower-tier" programs. In a perfect world they would be recognized for producing very high quality work. Unfortunately money and time enter the picture pretty quickly, and candidates/applicants have to be evaluated, ranked, interviewed, flown out, etc within a very, very, very short span of time. The current system simply isn't able to give every candidate the attention they probably deserve. It sucks, but it's how shit works.

They have really young, stellar Modern/Contemporary scholars right now. Between Christina Kiaer, Hannah Feldman, and Huey Copeland I imagine it will be one of the top programs in the area very soon. Rebecca Zorach, though she is technically an Early Modernist, is also doing some super cool 20th century work right now. & I can't speak for all subfields, but I am not sure if I'd really see the department as leaning more towards "social art history" than "theoretical" work (not sure why the split, honestly). The scholars I've mentioned all do very theoretically engaged, social art history. Feldman's recent From a Nation Torn being a great example...

Well their students get jobs.

As far as I know, deferrals simply don't happen. I don't think that asking for one is nearly as rude as your advisor seems to think, but realistically it's sort of fool's errant. In the case that you get both, I would take the PhD offer over the Fulbright. Once you're in a program, you'll have more flexibility in terms of study, i.e. the possibility of spending time in the country in question before you begin research for the dissertation.

Let's be real though, Jeffrey Jerome Cohen is such a far-cry from Adorno that I don't think the two are even comparable. Aesthetic Theory is one of the most complex books of the 20th century...

You're in the wrong forum?

As a sidenote of sorts, I don't want to seem like I'm suggesting that extensively long/excessive reading lists are the only way to be rigorous. There are equally rigorous programs with different pedagogical strategies, but Berkeley, and some other programs like Duke Lit, are known for this sort of front-loaded, wide-reaching course. I remember talking to another professor about program "signatures," i.e. he said he could quite easily pick out scholars from the program he had gone to, simply based on their work. Berkeley's scholarly depth & intensity is part of that. It's just like Yale during its heyday; you can tell when students have been through the program because of the tone/content of their scholarship. That being said, I think it's fair to say that Berkeley is a really, really, really amazing program, and that students there are pushed further than those at most other programs. I don't know if this necessarily produces entirely superior scholarship in the long-run, but there is a very high standard of output. Like others in the thread have mentioned, this is why I find Berkeley to be really compelling. I think that it holds its students to a model of dedication and intellectual breadth that is becoming more and more of a rarity, but does so without falling into conservatism or decadence or political apathy.

I'm not saying she wasn't being hyperbolic to a degree, but sometimes I look at course descriptions like http://complit.berkeley.edu/?page_id=10171and I wonder...

As far as I know from a friend at Chicago, the department is incredibly collegial and friendly. Columbia used to be considered a highly toxic program, but that was because of unequal funding, which is no longer an issue. One thing that doesn't surprise me, however, is that a lot of these rumours tend to stick to schools with terminal MA programs, and competitive PhD admissions. This applies to both Chicago and Columbia, and I wouldn't be surprised if there was some level of resentment or antagonism between MA and PhD students. Berkeley has also always had a reputation having a far heavier reading load than other programs. A professor of mine, for example, will quite happily tell students that she read "3000 pages a week at Berkeley in the 90s." I think some of this is overblown, but hey, Berkeley is a phenomenally intense program. Whether you want to categorize this as cruel is another question. In terms of collegiality, I have only heard good things about Berkeley, and the students in the program seem to be very supportive of one another. So who knows?

I don't think it's nearly this clear-cut, sorry. You can have a completely open hiring practice and and still choose a candidate based on sociality and networking—I think that's where people get thrown off. Moreover, departments have to hire with more than some sort of narrow form of ethics in mind, where everyone exists as an individual in a bubble. As much as that might seem ideal, it's not. Job committees have more to deal with than upholding the ethical ideals of job applicants, namely the issue of "fit" that the OP seems to be so angsty about. For example, a recent job search (in a department that I won't name) had recently lost a TT-Assistant Prof to another department. They were explicitly told by the university that if a) the search failed, or another hired candidate left, the tenure-line would go extinct and funding would be shifted elsewhere. Does this suck? Yes, of course it does. The department ended up hiring a candidate who had worked on a project with a current faculty position, because there were opportunities there in terms of departmental strength and new collective projects. More importantly, because the two people in question were part of the same smaller academic initiative/working group the department knew that the new hire would be more likely to remain in the position. Similarly, it helped to anchor a more senior faculty member within the department. This doesn't mean that the hiring process wasn't open; multiple candidates were interviewed, and multiple campus lectures happened. Moreover, the department wasn't deterministically set on choosing the candidate they ended up hiring. Yes, they were aware of the person they eventually hired, but there was the possibility that they would have hired a different candidate if that candidate had been compelling enough to sway them. The final decision wasn't made because of some sort of nepotistic old boys' club; it was made because the committee was thinking seriously about the broader departmental impact. They made their choice because they wanted to preserve the tenure-line, and because they felt it was the best decision overall for the department's stability, productivity, and collegiality. The same sort of story could be told ad nauseum, and with different situations. Consider spousal hiring, for example. Some people get really up in arms about what they see as one person getting a free pass. This may be true in some situations, but it's also a very pragmatic way for departments/universities to secure both candidates for the foreseeable future. Like I mentioned before, it's also often a very good way to stabilize or improve a department. What I'm trying to say, I suppose, is that there are countless factors that come into play during hiring, and all sorts of ethical and interpersonal decisions that are larger than the individual candidates in question. Moreover—and I think this is something people forget—academic work is profoundly social. The reading group you participate in, the series your book is contracted to be published in, the conference you present at, the editorial project you work on, all can have social implications for hiring. They're all opportunities to make connections with scholars who, later down the line, may be on a hiring committee when you're on the market. Reducing all of these interactions to corruption or nepotism is ignoring the complexity of the process. As a side-note, I don't know where you're getting the idea that I'm in favour of policies that "hurt minority groups." The mode of academic socialization I'm talking about is pretty widely applicable across various disciplines. You'll see it in Ethnic Studies as much as English, and in African-American or Postcolonial searches as much as Victorian or Shakespearean ones. The bottom-line is that assuming that "merit" should be the end-goal of hiring is wrong. Hiring functions based on how a committee feels the candidate will work within a department, including future potential and the horrible factor of "fit."

I'm somewhat shocked that "inside hires, BS searches, and lateral moves" seem to be coming as a surprise. Yes, academia is about intellectual work—that should go unsaid—but it is also a social game. Top tier PhD programs give you access to academic social circles/communities, and information that you might not have otherwise. It's possible that taking advantage of these opportunities is "careerism," but it's also necessary. If you can develop a strong enough network within your field, you will know about inside hires, "nepotism," etc. There's also an equally likely chance that you will benefit from potential inside information and solicitations for applications. Part of me really resents and loathes the business-like side of things, i.e. networking, selling oneself, and clique-like organization. On the other hand, I can't really sympathize with people who want to remain ignorant to these realities. Yes, you may "believe deeply in the importance of teaching and research," but these aren't activities that happen in an insular, individualist bubble. I have trouble believing that some of this shock doesn't stem from the realization that academia isn't some sort of cloistered monastery, where everything operates on an honour system. On another level, I also want to speak a bit in favour of academia as a social system. On one level, yes, it does follow a somewhat corporate logic of in/out groups. At the same time, working academically within a social group can be a deeply intimate and productive activity. I'm thinking of specific social formations, like the groups around Post45, postmedieval, Feel Tank, and nonsite. Have these groupings helped their members acquire jobs and publications? Yes, of course they have, but I don't think they've emerged from a position of cynical careerism. When you start looking at things this way, I think it becomes less surprising that hiring ends up being somewhat of a closed system. Whether this is entirely ethical is up for debate, but I think that the idea of "fit" is more complicated than people want to admit.

This is a thing, but as far as I can tell it's also a privilege given to tenured scholars. The pattern seems to be that you train as a 20th century Americanist, Victorianist, Miltonist, etc, get a job and tenure, and then publish your magical treatise on Shakespeare and Toni Morrison. I don't think it's harmful to gesture towards interests that are less period bound in a SOP, but the reality is that hiring is very much tied to periodization. When you go on the job market, you'll be applying for positions that fit your period "slot." Even if scholarship is pushing the boundaries of periodization/genre/temporality, it's a situation in which the material reality of the job market hasn't caught up with/doesn't reflect this scholarship.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that Military History is becoming somewhat of an emerging trend? Obviously not in a traditional mode, i.e. "the exploits of white dude generals," but I think also not necessarily in the mode of Social History? I'm thinking in particular of work in Media Studies (Kittler, Siegert, Virilio, Stiegler, etc) as well as recent interest in figures like Ernst Jünger and Carl Schmitt. Additionally, I don't want to discount recent developments in warfare; consider the recent influence of drones? Surely we will be seeing histories of drone warfare at some point in the future. In this context, I wouldn't be surprised if we start seeing a lot of work on war as culture technique, on military modes of seeing, and on weapons as extensions of human bodies—to name a few possibilities. These subjects seem to straddle a number of different areas, including strategy and tactics. Maybe we should be looking at Histories of Science/Technology/Media/Architecture for the continuation of Military History, rather than either consigning it to some sort of historiography junk-heap, or completely folding it into the cultural or social. I don't agree with the OP, but I think some areas of Military History have been discounted in the socio-cultural turn. I think the issue now is finding the best way to recuperate issues like tactics and weaponry without falling back into white-man history. (Realizing I should expand a bit more—I think that the social histories of war that have been mentioned in the thread are super great and relevant, but that we're going to be seeing something a bit different soon. I'd expect more work focusing on the non-human, on machines, assemblage theory, early cybernetics, camouflage, etc. Perhaps "object" or "technique" histories might be the best labels. Hanna Rose Shell's book on camouflage, Hide and Seek, is an interesting example of what we might start seeing more of.)

R1 --> book contract & book --> Job/Tenure.

Go to McGill. Montreal is cheap and beautiful. McGill has a great department, and MA students in Canadian programs tend to get more attention than American MA students, since terminal MAs are standard in Canada.

FRED MOTEN

I think some people are overestimating the impact of retirements at Berkeley. Yes, Clark/Wagner are gone, but part of the strength of the program comes from its interdisciplinarity. Outside of the very prominent scholars within the department, doctoral students at Berkeley have been able to work with (often as co-chairs) scholars like Judith Butler, Martin Jay, Wendy Brown, Pheng Cheah, Trinh T. Minh-ha, Linda Williams, Anton Kaes, etc. While the clout of T.J. Clark was very significant in getting Berkeley grads jobs, I would hazard to guess that committees stacked with other academic powerhouses also had something to do with hiring. Needless to say, this is still possible at Berkeley. You can bet that a job candidate who has worked with Julia Bryan-Wilson and Judith Butler, for example, will be very desirable. The same can be said about numerous other combinations, and considering that this is standard practice at Berkeley, I don't see them being any less of a powerhouse in the years to come.

Just to say about Cultural Studies—be somewhat wary of programs that focus on the area. There are programs in Cultural Studies (Media Studies, American studies, etc as well) that have high placement rates, however, these are generally high-ranked schools. The flip-side of this is that PhD programs outside of English can often hurt your employment prospects, because schools are often looking for candidates trained in a more explicitly literary context. I've been told time and time again by a number of profs that unless you're talking about something like Brown's MCM, it's better to work on theory or cultural studies within a literature program, if only for the credentials. Cultural Studies programs can look really stellar from the outside, but they also come with significant risks.

You're exactly the kind of person I would hope would be accepted at these schools. Don't talk about luck eh, you deserve this. Screw privilege and keep killing it.

Honestly, I don't think that an anthropological MA will hold you back from Comp. Lit programs, particularly since you have taken courses in the area, but also because anthropological work really can't be ignored in an African context. Scholars like Mbembe, Didier Fassin & the Comaroffs work with anthropological texts/are anthropologists, but as also central to the context of African lit. If you really want to move on to a PhD you can probably sell your anthropological training as a strength, rather than a weakness. Make your MA work for you by demonstrating that it will help you in a PhD program; don't sell yourself short here. That being said, I don't think think a second MA would hurt, provided that you aren't going into debt for it. If the real issue with your application was reference letters, that might be grounds for a second MA. However, I think it's general practice for professors to refuse to write reference letters in the case that they don't feel that they can speak to an applicant's strengths. Unless you had a particularly bad interaction with one of the writers, I don't think any of them would want to screw you over. No one wants to write a bad reference letter. Long story short: write a SoP highlighting the importance/utility of your MA in the context of Comp Lit, talk to potential reference letter writers about your application, and email potential advisors. Obviously you can do more research in your field (everyone can, always) but I don't think it has to be formalized in the context of another MA. Read on the side, keep up with the field, and let that show in your SoP.

Don't apply to the European Grad School; it is a vanity project and will not lead to employment. Otherwise your list seems pretty good, although I am a bit unsure as to whether you'll have much of an opportunity to study anime in some of the listed departments.

I think you should be fine, provided that you (and your letter writers) deal with the aforementioned issues appropriately, as the posters above me have suggested. One thing that I am curious about is the length of your thesis; at 300 pages, it is longer than some dissertations. On one hand it's quite impressive, particularly considering the circumstances. Some committees might see it as proof of your ability to complete a dissertation. On the other hand, it seems somewhat excessive, and might suggest that you had trouble delimiting your argument. I know of some MA programs in which 150 pages is an absolute limit for theses, so I'm wondering why/how yours ended up being 300. Is that typical in your program, or was it something to do with your advising debacle?

As far as I know a degree in the UK will be more expensive than a Canadian degree. British tuition fees have skyrocketed over the past few years.

Aim high. If you're applying to Columbia there's no reason for you to not apply to Princeton.

Princeton's IHUM program would be worth looking at. You apply after your third year in a Humanities doctoral program (i.e. English), with successful applicants being awarded an additional year of funding to work in another field. It's a pretty awesome program, with really great seminar offerings.