poliscar

I'm not a Medievalist, but Andrew Cole at Princeton has published & edited a fair amount of work pertaining to the Theory/Medieval Studies relationship. His recent book The Birth of Theory traces contemporary theory backwards through Hegel, and into the premodern period. I'd also check out The Legitimacy of the Middle Ages, which is a volume he edited on the medieval roots of theory, as well as the issue of the minnesota review he edited on the turn to the medieval in theory. Bruce Holsinger's The Premodern Condition deals with similar issues, looking at Bataille/Lacan/Bourdieu, etc through a medieval lens. In both cases you're looking more at the use of the Middle Ages to understand theory, than the rote application of contemporary theory to premodern contexts. In terms of other people, Carolyn Dinshaw has done some cool work between medieval studies and queer theory, which might be worth checking out. I'd also throw in Amy Hollywood, Vance Smith, and Sara Poor as scholars working in interesting ways.

100% take it. In almost every case language knowledge can be proven via. translation exam, etc. If it's a language that will be helpful for your research in the future I wouldn't have any qualms about enrolling. Chances are it may also be a better environment to learn the language in, considering the local community of speakers. You may find yourself with a fluent conversation partner in the end.

Don't pick a field based on employability. It's not going to give you more than a marginal advantage; TT-track positions in History are highly competitive in any field. Making any decision in Academia based on trends, whether they are to do with the perceived importance of that field or on employability, is a bad idea. Pick something that thrills you enough for it to be something you want to spend the rest of your life thinking about. The last thing you want to do is to enter a field only to find out, three years down the road, that your interest in it was never going to be deep enough for you to complete a dissertation in the area. You also need to narrow done your interests a lot more. To say that you're interested in "South Asian history" or a "combination of Middle East and African History" is incredibly vague. Within those three geographical areas you're looking at numerous countries and languages. Are you interested in Lebanon? Syria? India? Iraq? Do you have language training in Arabic, Hindi, or Bengali (to name a fraction of the languages that might be necessary)? Moreover, even when you are most specific—i.e. when you mention the imperialism/colonialism—you're still looking at a vast timespan that you would need to delimit. One could foreseeably write about colonialism in any period from the 15th century to the present (that is probably a conservative estimate as well, considering recent work on colonialism in the Medieval period). If you're applying to doctoral programs, you should be able to describe a fairly specific field of interest. This might look something like "feminist and gender history in early-20th century Bangladesh," or "urban space in postcolonial Algeria." Once you've done that, look at the languages involved; if you have minimal to no experience with these languages, you need to rethink your suitability for study in that field at a doctoral level. Not only will you not have access to vital scholarship in those languages—crippling your grasp of the historiography—but you also won't be able to complete archival research, which is necessary for any dissertation. I think you should step back and really think about a) what you're interested in, why you want to complete a doctorate, and c) how qualified you are to work in various fields at a doctoral level. Even though you have an MA, it seems as though you still have a lot of decisions to make before you apply for a PhD.

I think the English program is still fairly strong. However, Comparative Literature took a huge beating after the financial crisis, and hasn't really recovered yet. Individual funding may be an issue, but departmentally English seems to still be on its feet.

Don't do it if you have any intention of teaching in North America ever.

I think a rule-of-thumb is generally near near-fluency in one, primary foreign language, and ability to complete coursework in secondary language. Some programs also ask for reading knowledge of a classical/ancient language as well, but I don't think that is a an across-the-board rule. Fluency in two languages is definitely not a requirement, and most Comp. Lit program expect further language study once you've been accepted, so you'd have time to brush up. It's very common for Comp. Lit students to study at foreign universities as well, so you would be able to become near-fluent in French or Russian in a native-setting. Also, as a side-note, I've heard from numerous people that graduate students (and occasionally faculty) often oversell their Russian proficiency. It doesn't seem to a be language in which there is a high standard of fluency in American programs, so you probably have a fairly comfortable time taking courses in Slavic departments.

Are you hoping to work with Ann Cvetkovich at UT Austin? (going by the trauma-studies interest...) If so, I'd look at UChicago; Lauren Berlant and Deborah Nelson both do work on trauma, and Chicago is also a highly interdisciplinary program. You might want to check out Stanford's Modern Though and Lit as well, as well as Heather Love at UPenn. Hope this is helpful.

Do you mean Modernist? British? Irish? American? Global? Your post is pretty vague... Really, your best bet is to look at scholarship you admire. Where are those authors working? Find those schools and see if they're interested in taking on new graduate students. You'll find out more that way than you will asking here, unless you are able to post very specific interests.

Almost every school has language requirements . In almost every case "reading knowledge" is shorthand for a translation test with a dictionary. Quite a few graduate faculties post example exams—here are U of Chicago's, for example: https://registrar.sites.uchicago.edu/languge-exams (note the hilarious spelling error) Give or take a few minor differences (length, content, small changes in difficulty) the Chicago exams can be seen as a pretty standard template. All you need to be able to do is pass a maximum of two of these exams—generally by your second or third year. Obviously it helps to be able to go into the program being able to pass at least one of the two (where two are asked for), but it's not vital. One of my professors (top program, etc) mentioned that he was able to pass having studied a language for under a month. They are not strenuous exams, and it is in the department's interest for you to pass. That being said, cloudofunknowing is correct to point out specific period/geographic language requirements (medievalists & early modernists particularly). There has also been a recent move towards more transnational methodologies in literary studies, so languages are a boon in that case. Despite that though, the language requirements are less threatening than they appear. Unless you're hoping to be a medievalist, or—in certain cases, a postcolonialist (you might want Hindi or Bengali to study Indian lit, for example)—you really don't need to be anything close to fluent, nor to be able to read novels in another language. More or less, you need a good dictionary and a rudimentary understanding of grammatical structures.

First of all, GRE isn't an end-all, be-all. Yes you could improve, but your writing sample & LORs will be far more important. What I would be considering if I were you, however, is what you want to do with your degree/where you want to end up working. Folklore isn't exactly a thriving discipline, and if you limit yourself to Folklore departments you risk dramatically reducing your employment prospects. Try looking at Anthropology departments, or even History and Literature departments. Chances are you'll be able to find a suitable supervisor & committee while maintaining employability. There's also the upside of interdisciplinarity. I'd also ask if you're looking at a specific region. Depending on that, Language and Area Studies departments could also be an option, though they may also not be as ideal in terms of employment. You could also throw a post in the Interdisciplinary Studies and/or Anthropology forums here. You might have a better/more productive reception there. The general Humanities forum tends to be pretty dead. Best of luck.

I don't know of any doctoral programs that require an MA thesis for entry. Honestly, I'm not sure where you mentor got that from, but it's not accurate information. You aren't going to be penalized by a PhD program for not having written a thesis. It can be a very helpful option for a numbers of reasons (LoRs, writing sample, depth of research interests, etc) but it isn't necessary. Based on that, choose the option you are most interested in. If you find that you want to apply to PhD programs later on, a seminar paper is enough for a writing sample. Also, to put my earlier statement into context: the English MA program at U of T is composed entirely of coursework. As far as I know, they don't have a thesis option for MA students. Despite this, many of their students continue on to doctoral programs.

Don't do it.

What I'd say is that there are definitely programs where you would be able to do transhistorical research, but the caveat is that they'll still expect some sort of historical grounding for various reasons, i.e. qualifying exams & professionalization. In that case, an application that grounds you in the context of the late 19th/early 20th century (or another period, of course), but that also expresses your interest in a sort of longue-durée history of poetics is probably your best bet. It's definitely also a good idea to email potential advisors—even if they don't end up being good fits, they may be able to point you onward to other scholars? As a side note, I had forgotten, but Northwestern has a specific qualifying exam specialization in Poetry and Poetics. You can see it here if you're interested: http://www.english.northwestern.edu/graduate/grad%20documents/QE1%20Reading%20Lists.pdf . In general Northwestern is a good school for poetics; it may lean more towards free-verse, but in that case I am not sure if you can have scholarship on free-verse without the tension between it and formal poetry. The same goes for UPenn—someone like Perelman is going to be (obviously) associated with Language, but is also going to be very well versed in historical poetics.

Princeton would be worth looking at—Meredith Martin would definitely fit your interests, as would Susan Stewart. Johns Hopkins could also be a good bet, between Sharon Cameron and Christopher Nealon. They're also in the process of hiring two new tenured faculty members, and they've advertised that search as trans-Atlantic, long 19th century, so it's definitely a department where there isn't such an explicit American/British split. Berkeley has some great poetics scholars in your area, like Anne-Lise Francois and Charles Altieri; Jennifer Scappettone at Chicago might be promising; and Cornell has Jonathan Culler, who doesn't really need an introduction. I would say though—if you plan on working on the late 19th/early 20th century, I don't know if submitting a writing sample on Shakespeare is the best idea. Though you could argue that you want to study the sonnet trans-historically, that's still a huge span of almost four centuries.

The University of Toronto has a very strong Medieval Studies program, with a one-year, taught MA. I know that they do quite well in terms of placing students in top-tier PhD programs as well, and it's a very large, diverse program, so you wouldn't be pigeon-holed into a certain approach. At the same time, it has strong ties with the English, French, Italian, German, Spanish and Comp. Lit. departments at the university, so you'd be able to work quite intensively within a literary context.

I'd add Duke Lit. as a possibility, as well as Brown's Modern Culture and Media. NYU's Media, Culture, and Communication might also be a good fit, but it's hard to say. You'd probably also do well to refine your focus in terms of geographical area. Wanting to study various strains of Marxism isn't enough—in almost every case you're going to have to pick a specific context. You mention, for example, that you're interested in autonomism and the Zapatista movement. If you were to want to seriously study either of those topics, you would need to have a very good working grasp of Italian or Spanish (or possibly German if you're interested in German Autonome, etc). To put it bluntly, you're going to need to be able to research in that language. If we consider Vivek Chibber as an example, you can see that his work is grounded in context of India & the surrounding area. You can bet that he is able to research in at least Hindi and Bengali, and possibly other Indian languages. In this context, while you can see him as a Marxist, he is also, and equally so, a scholar of India. Obviously, to an extent, this depends on how historical you want your work to be, as well as the state of the literature in the area you choose (what has been translated? is is mostly in Spanish/Italian? etc.) Either way, it's unlikely that you would be able to work with any of your topics of interest at a dissertation level without the use of 1-2 European languages. If I were you, I would firm up your research interests and proceed from there. Pick an area and stick with it; if you're stubborn/ambitious, potentially propose a comparative study of Autonomist and Zapatista struggles (and/or representations of these struggles). Don't try to apply with vague research interests in "post-Marxism" and "rethinking Communism," because they encompass far too much. Try to delimit your research interests geographically, linguistically, and theoretically. You'll absolutely be able to ground yourself in broader arguments through coursework and field/qualifying exams, but those broader arguments should not be what you propose as research interests. Doctoral work is all about deep, intense specialization—yes it will open up and speak to a wider context, but it should stem from pointed engagement with a very specific problem.

I think most programs would be less than impressed—especially if they expect you to produce a progress report after each of your summers.

I'd be wary of considering them graduate courses. Yes, they may label them as such, but they are going to be worlds different from what you would experience in the programs you express interest in. In all honesty, the likelihood of them helping you gain acceptance to a doctoral program is pretty minimal. They aren't going to be at the same level of rigour as a high level graduate seminar, nor will they help you gain reference letters. Really, those extension schools are cash-grabs; they simply aren't going to facilitate entry to competitive graduate schools. Why do you say that a terminal MA isn't a possibility? At this point, I would probably say that it is your only option based on the tier of schools you seem to be interested in. Even a lower tier would be a stretch unless you have stellar LoRs and a competitive writing sample.

Honestly I don't think said courses exist—not at a graduate level at least, and certainly not at schools like those you've mentioned. You'd have better luck looking at funded MA programs.

Any PhD program worth going to will give you a tuition waiver... really, who on earth would pay tuition for a doctorate; it's a total moot-point to bring it up. Moreover, no, funding is not better—most Canadian programs do not offer funding comparable to the better American programs, and yes, most Canadian doctoral students rely on SSHRC funding (or another comparable Canadian grant). You're also looking at higher teaching loads in some cases, which isn't ideal in the 5th or 6th year, when you should be writing. In terms of employment, there isn't really much to say that I haven't said already. You'll likely be shut out of Canadian jobs if you're not a citizen or landed immigrant, and you'll be a harder sell in the US, especially coming out of a department like Alberta or UBC. I'm not making this up—you can find former doctoral students on ProQuest/other databases, and very, very few of them have TT positions (though I can find one who is a yoga teacher now). The whole "if you're good enough" spiel belies the fact that academic hiring processes aren't fully based on merit. You can be a stellar candidate and scholar and still be passed over for reasons of prestige/networking/brand. The market is so swamped with qualified candidates right now that no one needs to look at all of the job applications, at least not carefully. It is really shitty, but a PhD from UBC or Alberta (Toronto is a mixed bag—they tend to do well with Early Modern/Medieval hires) is essentially a handicap. Roquentin mentions the idea of "selling your department," but really, in most cases you're not going to have an interview in the first place, so where are you supposed to sell the department? You're not going to utilize an application cover letter trying to compensate for your department, and really, you shouldn't have to "sell" it in the first place. Obviously I am coming off as negative, but like I said, I don't intend to dissuade you from applying to Canadian schools—that's your decision. That being said, think very carefully about the decision. I am in a Canadian department right now, and whenever a TT job position opens it is filled by a candidate with an American PhD (Can-lit is different, but with 1-2 TT jobs a year it might as well be irrelevant anyhow). At the same time, you can look the lists of sessional faculty and find countless Canadian PhDs. It's brutally depressing, but it's the truth. Though it sucks to have to be the naysayer here, I'd rather people find this all out now, rather than finding it out after they have a PhD and they're stuck adjuncting somewhere for peanuts.

To add to this, there is an even larger gap in the humanities when you factor in the role prestige plays in the humanities. Doing graduate work somewhere like TRIUMF at UBC (or any other significant lab/working group) will place you in a specific scientific context that isn't as contingent on "prestige." In the humanities, however, you're more dependent on school name and your advisor's status in the field—i.e. you're not going to have your name listed as a co-author on a paper, like you might in the sciences. More or less, you don't have the legs to stand on that a science student might, since the humanities are so fickle. Like I said before, Canadian departments are producing really great work, but there are so many problems with the job market. Toronto has a decent placement record, but it's no better than equivalent American schools, and you'll likely be working with less funding. UBC is—in all honesty—even more of a gamble. I won't tell you not to apply, but I would apply to top-tier American schools alongside UBC and Toronto. Don't get fixated on Canada, because at the moment it really isn't the greatest place to do graduate work in the humanities. I'll also say once again that I'm coming here from an insider position, so I do have a fair idea of what I'm talking about.

First of all, funding will be hard, because Canadian schools are very tied to SSHRC money, which you won't be eligible for. Because most students are expected to gain SSHRC funding as well, doctoral fellowships are not nearly as generous as they are at comparable American schools. Beyond that, you won't get a job after graduation. With a Canadian degree you're generally limiting yourself to Canadian tenure-track positions. However, as an American you would be shut out of those positions, seeing as Canadian universities prioritize Canadian citizens & permanent residents in jobs searches. Moreover, it's quite common now for these job positions to go to Canadian citizens who have completed their doctorates in American programs. I'd say that the bottom line is that you're better off completing your doctorate in the US, especially since you're American. Canadian programs are excellent, but as a Canadian undergrad I was repeatedly told to apply to American doctoral programs. Even the top Canadian schools have trouble placing candidates in TT positions. It's just not worth it. (To add to this, I know I will face pushback for this post, particularly from Canadian grad students. I have nothing but respect for the programs in question, and there are excellent Canadian departments. The problems in question are a) the awful job market, which has been very hard on Canadian candidates, and the funding of the humanities in Canada, at a moment when Canadian universities are being rapidly neoliberalized. This isn't an attack on Canadian universities at all—it sucks for everyone.)

Where do you foresee your career heading, geographically speaking? Do you intend to stay in France, and if so, would this publication be helpful for you there in terms of promotion & tenure? If the answer to both of those questions is yes, I'd say to go ahead and accept the offer. If you hope to work outside of France I would be a bit more careful. In a French or Romance Studies department such a book would probably count towards tenure, but in an American Studies department (or another field, say History or English), in which scholarship is primarily conducted in English, it probably wouldn't be recognized in relation to the labour involved. Some departments might count it as the equivalent of an article or two, but I can't necessarily see it being given the same weight as a monograph published by an english university press. I would also be wary about publishing it now and then working towards what you term a "genuine rewrite." You'd probably be toying with copyright issues there, and even outside of that, UPs can be pretty anal about publishing work that is already available in a published form. In that context, you'd be hard-pressed to find someone willing to publish a book when an earlier version already exists in book form. In a North American context, and to a lesser-extent a British context (I can't speak to a European context), you're probably best off pushing for a book contract with a university press. If you can, publishing a chapter or two in article form can be helpful in this case, particularly if the journals in question are notable in your field.

I think the general consensus is that it is a bit of a cash-grab (all paid MA programs are, really) but that it does well in terms of placing students in doctoral programs, etc. If you can afford it I think the opportunity is worth it, but I wouldn't go into debt for it.

Be wary of focusing too much on sub-fields though, because they don't necessarily matter when it counts, i.e. during the hiring process. Hiring committees aren't always going to be aware of sub-field reputation, so in a lot of cases institutional prestige will have more influence. In this context, ranking graduate programs is difficult, because it comes down to an institution vs. subfield conflict. Of course some departments have both institutional and subfield prestige, but if comes down to a situation (entirely fictional) in which you have to choose between a prestigious school (i.e. Harvard, Berkeley, Stanford, etc) with a lower sub-field ranking, and a less prestigious school (say Fordham or Stony Brook—and this is not to attack these programs) with a higher sub-field ranking, you're arguably better off choosing the more prestigious school. It sucks, but name-brand recognition still has a lot of clout in hiring processes, and can be utilized to cut down a pool of applicants before they are examined in depth.