poliscar

I feel like there should be some sort of warning on every English department website, that says "you can't specialize in Theory." 

You need some sort of historical & geographical specialization; that's how you professionalize. When you prepare for your qualifying exams, they will be rooted in a specific area, even if you choose subfields in Feminist Theory or Marxism, etc. All programs, regardless of theoretical intensity or involvement, will have students ground their work in a concrete area/archive.

"Theory" is not a concentration—it's a massive body of work, with an incredible range of approaches. Saying you want to specialize in it is akin to saying you want to specialize in Literature. Moreover, it won't get you a job; departments very rarely conduct job searches for "theorists." That doesn't mean they don't hire or employ them, but that the scholars in question were almost always hired as Romanticists, or Modernists, or 20th Century Americanists (etc). 

My advice would be to find an area you want to work in, write your thesis on something relevant to it, and then apply with the intent of focusing on said area. You might end up with something like "American Modernism, Psychoanalysis, Marxism, and Affect" as a rough outline of your interests. However, I can't stress enough that Theory is not, not, not, not enough. 

I feel like there should be some sort of warning on every English department website, that says "you can't specialize in Theory." 

You need some sort of historical & geographical specialization; that's how you professionalize. When you prepare for your qualifying exams, they will be rooted in a specific area, even if you choose subfields in Feminist Theory or Marxism, etc. All programs, regardless of theoretical intensity or involvement, will have students ground their work in a concrete area/archive.

"Theory" is not a concentration—it's a massive body of work, with an incredible range of approaches. Saying you want to specialize in it is akin to saying you want to specialize in Literature. Moreover, it won't get you a job; departments very rarely conduct job searches for "theorists." That doesn't mean they don't hire or employ them, but that the scholars in question were almost always hired as Romanticists, or Modernists, or 20th Century Americanists (etc). 

My advice would be to find an area you want to work in, write your thesis on something relevant to it, and then apply with the intent of focusing on said area. You might end up with something like "American Modernism, Psychoanalysis, Marxism, and Affect" as a rough outline of your interests. However, I can't stress enough that Theory is not, not, not, not enough. 

I feel like there should be some sort of warning on every English department website, that says "you can't specialize in Theory." 

You need some sort of historical & geographical specialization; that's how you professionalize. When you prepare for your qualifying exams, they will be rooted in a specific area, even if you choose subfields in Feminist Theory or Marxism, etc. All programs, regardless of theoretical intensity or involvement, will have students ground their work in a concrete area/archive.

"Theory" is not a concentration—it's a massive body of work, with an incredible range of approaches. Saying you want to specialize in it is akin to saying you want to specialize in Literature. Moreover, it won't get you a job; departments very rarely conduct job searches for "theorists." That doesn't mean they don't hire or employ them, but that the scholars in question were almost always hired as Romanticists, or Modernists, or 20th Century Americanists (etc). 

My advice would be to find an area you want to work in, write your thesis on something relevant to it, and then apply with the intent of focusing on said area. You might end up with something like "American Modernism, Psychoanalysis, Marxism, and Affect" as a rough outline of your interests. However, I can't stress enough that Theory is not, not, not, not enough. 

It's not a harsh opinion; it's a fact. The UW disaster has been all over the national news during the past couple years. People are all the more up in arms about it precisely because the school (esp the Madison campus) is so great. As I mentioned above, this is not the usual question of grad student stipends, health benefits, etc. The long-term health of the university is suffering and it's just going to get worse as the best faculty leave for brighter pastures. (I know several faculty members at this university who are actively seeking other jobs.) There is a very good chance that if you get into this art history program you will be well funded but will find yourself without an advisor in short order.  
http://chronicle.com/article/The-Withering-of-a-Once-Great/231565/
On a happier note, U. of Michigan's art history program is also worth considering. It has been a bastion of stability and there are some terrific people there.

CGU doesn't fund their students. Abort abort abort.

I know of a few successful & happy Canadians at Berkeley!

This is a very minor thing in an otherwise excellent post about the necessary (in the logical sense) importance of canonical works to theoretical positions that engage the concept of hegemonic canonicity, but I just wanted to correct this bit for anyone thinking of applying to UCB. The program requires that you have a Shakespeare course, but not necessarily a graduate one -- it can be an upper-division undergraduate class, so most students enter the program already having fulfilled the requirement with a course taken at their undergraduate institution. (It's also worth noting that there's been a lot of recent talk about how odd it is that we're one of the last holdouts for a specific author requirement at the graduate level, and I'd not be surprised if the req were gone in a couple years.)

Skim it, learn character names, plot-lines, details regarding meter & poetics, etc. You don't need to read in detail to succeed on the Lit GRE; the identification questions are generally quite shallow. 

That being said, I am a little puzzled as to why you're applying to English programs. Whether you feel the material is worthwhile or not, all of the programs you seem to be interested in will also require you take to graduate coursework in pre-modern lit. Princeton, for example, only allows you to opt out of a single period from Medieval - Modern lit. Likewise, the program at Berkeley has all PhD students take a graduate course on Shakespeare. If the cursory knowledge required by the GRE is potentially a deal-breaker for you, are you going to be ok with working with the material at a more advanced level? 

I also have to say that I think you're doing yourself a disfavour by avoiding Shakespeare/Milton/etc. To play the devil's advocate, I'd point out that Homi Bhabha has written on Milton. In the same vein, you'd be hard-pressed to avoid The Tempest in Postcolonial & Critical Race studies. There's also a lot of imporant recent scholarship that continues to draw on this work—Feisel Mohamed's Milton and the Post-Secular Present, for example, or Fred Moten's reading of Shakespeare's sonnets in In the Break. Whether you enjoy it or not is really beside the point, because you're going to have a hard time getting away from it, even if it isn't your primary research focus. 

Skim it, learn character names, plot-lines, details regarding meter & poetics, etc. You don't need to read in detail to succeed on the Lit GRE; the identification questions are generally quite shallow. 

That being said, I am a little puzzled as to why you're applying to English programs. Whether you feel the material is worthwhile or not, all of the programs you seem to be interested in will also require you take to graduate coursework in pre-modern lit. Princeton, for example, only allows you to opt out of a single period from Medieval - Modern lit. Likewise, the program at Berkeley has all PhD students take a graduate course on Shakespeare. If the cursory knowledge required by the GRE is potentially a deal-breaker for you, are you going to be ok with working with the material at a more advanced level? 

I also have to say that I think you're doing yourself a disfavour by avoiding Shakespeare/Milton/etc. To play the devil's advocate, I'd point out that Homi Bhabha has written on Milton. In the same vein, you'd be hard-pressed to avoid The Tempest in Postcolonial & Critical Race studies. There's also a lot of imporant recent scholarship that continues to draw on this work—Feisel Mohamed's Milton and the Post-Secular Present, for example, or Fred Moten's reading of Shakespeare's sonnets in In the Break. Whether you enjoy it or not is really beside the point, because you're going to have a hard time getting away from it, even if it isn't your primary research focus. 

Skim it, learn character names, plot-lines, details regarding meter & poetics, etc. You don't need to read in detail to succeed on the Lit GRE; the identification questions are generally quite shallow. 

That being said, I am a little puzzled as to why you're applying to English programs. Whether you feel the material is worthwhile or not, all of the programs you seem to be interested in will also require you take to graduate coursework in pre-modern lit. Princeton, for example, only allows you to opt out of a single period from Medieval - Modern lit. Likewise, the program at Berkeley has all PhD students take a graduate course on Shakespeare. If the cursory knowledge required by the GRE is potentially a deal-breaker for you, are you going to be ok with working with the material at a more advanced level? 

I also have to say that I think you're doing yourself a disfavour by avoiding Shakespeare/Milton/etc. To play the devil's advocate, I'd point out that Homi Bhabha has written on Milton. In the same vein, you'd be hard-pressed to avoid The Tempest in Postcolonial & Critical Race studies. There's also a lot of imporant recent scholarship that continues to draw on this work—Feisel Mohamed's Milton and the Post-Secular Present, for example, or Fred Moten's reading of Shakespeare's sonnets in In the Break. Whether you enjoy it or not is really beside the point, because you're going to have a hard time getting away from it, even if it isn't your primary research focus. 

Skim it, learn character names, plot-lines, details regarding meter & poetics, etc. You don't need to read in detail to succeed on the Lit GRE; the identification questions are generally quite shallow. 

That being said, I am a little puzzled as to why you're applying to English programs. Whether you feel the material is worthwhile or not, all of the programs you seem to be interested in will also require you take to graduate coursework in pre-modern lit. Princeton, for example, only allows you to opt out of a single period from Medieval - Modern lit. Likewise, the program at Berkeley has all PhD students take a graduate course on Shakespeare. If the cursory knowledge required by the GRE is potentially a deal-breaker for you, are you going to be ok with working with the material at a more advanced level? 

I also have to say that I think you're doing yourself a disfavour by avoiding Shakespeare/Milton/etc. To play the devil's advocate, I'd point out that Homi Bhabha has written on Milton. In the same vein, you'd be hard-pressed to avoid The Tempest in Postcolonial & Critical Race studies. There's also a lot of imporant recent scholarship that continues to draw on this work—Feisel Mohamed's Milton and the Post-Secular Present, for example, or Fred Moten's reading of Shakespeare's sonnets in In the Break. Whether you enjoy it or not is really beside the point, because you're going to have a hard time getting away from it, even if it isn't your primary research focus. 

If you're interested in northern Europe, I'd also strongly recommend Northwestern. Christina Normore (very late Middle Ages), Claudia Swan, and Rebecca Zorach are all there.

The situation in the UW system goes beyond the usual funding crises that many universities have experienced. The budget cuts have been disastrous for all programs, tenure has been dismantled, and faculty are leaving in droves. The Madison art history department is fantastic, but I would not bank on it having its current shape two years from now.

Yes, your GRE general should be perfectly fine for almost any program, so long as your other materials are strong.
As for your second comment, to add my two cents to @poliscar, I firmly believe that until you can prove your academic chops at the graduate level, you simply can't avoid the canon. You can certainly have opinions on it (there was a great, long thread on GradCafe from two or three years back about revising the canon...it's worth looking up), but you'll have to have a functional acceptance of it, at least. There are simply too many scholars in virtually ALL good graduate programs who work in canonical fields for you to get by without having some sort of engagement with the canon...at the outset, at least. I'm not at all saying that this is the case with you -- just that you might not enjoy it (and I really don't blame you), but you have to accept it. Incidentally, I'm not a fan of high theory or symptomatic reading, but that hasn't stopped me from dropping Foucault etc. into my work from time to time.

So my undergrad degree is English Education & my MA is in English & American Literature. But my actual areas of interest are TV, Film, & Pop Culture. Now there are a lot of different programs in which a person can do such work, including a lot of English programs. Because of my background, I applied to mostly English programs. And part of why I picked Ohio State is because it is such a huge program that values of variety of fields, including TV/Film/Pop Culture. Though I do love reading, I have found myself pretty adverse to the canon over the years, so I feel you there. I did have to take some lit classes for my MA, many of which were in British literature (which is about as far away from my reading interests as you can get), and some of those classes were enjoyable while others were...er...they were classes that I took haha. I didn't have to really take much in the way of required lit classes for my PhD because all of my reqs were met by my MA.
But back to the test. OSU does not require the subject test. In fact, I didn't apply to any schools that did require the subject test. Some of them said you could send the score optionally, and I just opted right on out of that. It's true that a fair amount of the higher ranked schools do require the subject test, but rank wasn't ever one of my top priorities. I focused more on finding schools that aligned with my interests, and I got lucky enough that I apply to six of those without having to take an extra test. Everything I've heard about the subject test makes it sound like a pricey hassle, so if it can be avoided, I'd do so. That being said, from what I've read on the board here over the years, there seems to be a lot of variety in terms of whether people think the test score really helped or hindered them. So I guess if you find that you do have to take it, do what you have to do, but maybe try not to dwell on it too much?

Skim it, learn character names, plot-lines, details regarding meter & poetics, etc. You don't need to read in detail to succeed on the Lit GRE; the identification questions are generally quite shallow. 

That being said, I am a little puzzled as to why you're applying to English programs. Whether you feel the material is worthwhile or not, all of the programs you seem to be interested in will also require you take to graduate coursework in pre-modern lit. Princeton, for example, only allows you to opt out of a single period from Medieval - Modern lit. Likewise, the program at Berkeley has all PhD students take a graduate course on Shakespeare. If the cursory knowledge required by the GRE is potentially a deal-breaker for you, are you going to be ok with working with the material at a more advanced level? 

I also have to say that I think you're doing yourself a disfavour by avoiding Shakespeare/Milton/etc. To play the devil's advocate, I'd point out that Homi Bhabha has written on Milton. In the same vein, you'd be hard-pressed to avoid The Tempest in Postcolonial & Critical Race studies. There's also a lot of imporant recent scholarship that continues to draw on this work—Feisel Mohamed's Milton and the Post-Secular Present, for example, or Fred Moten's reading of Shakespeare's sonnets in In the Break. Whether you enjoy it or not is really beside the point, because you're going to have a hard time getting away from it, even if it isn't your primary research focus. 

Yep! Northwestern is on my shortlist, with Shannon and Evans my two main POIs. Thanks for chiming in!

Have you thought about Northwestern at all? Laurie Shannon is stellar, and Kasey Evans' work would go nicely with your interest in Race & Ethnicity. Northwestern English is also one of the best places for Critical Race Theory in general, so you'd have a broader context there for your work. 

So I'm updating my woefully outdated C.V., and I'm starting to wonder about whether I should continue to include my non-academic publications. In my pre-academic life, I was very involved in poetry, and ended up with scores of poems in various journals...many of which are highly regarded journals run by universities or academics etc. Still, as my academic focus has drifted away from poetry, is the inclusion of a section of poetry publications a bit irrelevant at this point, or does it demonstrate that I have at least been active in publication cycles etc.? In other words, what does the inclusion of a bunch of poetry publications on an academic C.V. say to an admissions committee?
On a slightly unrelated note, I would love to get a sense of what Ph.D. applicants generally put on their C.V.s. There are many examples available through basic Googling, but the more input, the better. For instance, I was on the organizing committee for the yearly English conference, was appointed to the dean's advisory board etc., but I'm not sure how to list things like that without it looking very junior high...

Do not retake it. 

And ignore the poster suggesting that qualifying exams are related to the GRE. They are not related at all, in any way, shape, and form. The Subject Test is an arbitrary, standardized test, designed to make money for the ETS. Qualifying exams are purposeful, carefully designed examinations of material vital to your field. They involve consultation with your advisor and other faculty members, and require actual critical thinking & knowledge. The conflation of the two is one of the most misleading things I have ever encountered here. 

Don't do it. 

Or I should say, be super, super wary of "Cultural Studies" programs. If you can get into a top-notch interdisciplinary program like Berkeley/Stanford, or Brown's Modern Culture and Media, you'll be in good hands. However, you'll put yourself at a significant disadvantage otherwise. Cultural Studies is not something departments hire for, it's not a flourishing field, and it won't provide you with the disciplinary grounding required for employment. 

You would be much better off finding English/Literature programs where you would be able to do the work you want to do. That, or look at Media Studies, Art History, Film, etc. Really, really research programs and faculty, and you will likely be better off than if you were to attach yourself to as nebulous a field as Cultural Studies. 

Upon perusing the profiles of current students (albeit briefly), you don't see many coming from state colleges or other local institutions, especially ones without MAs.

In terms of Canadian schools, McGill's East Asian Studies department could be a good fit. Yuriko Furuhata does super stellar work on Japanese film and media. 

OK, you can do this! I went to a State school that most people have never heard of, and it was for the same reason as you, it was what I could afford. I just got into an ivy which is a top 5 art history program. This did come with some set backs and I ended up going to the Courtauld Institute for my MA, which is kind of a "seal of approval" for Ivy's. Looking back on the past 4 years of working towards this goal, this is what I believe got me to this point: 
-meeting/working with the right people (and getting their recommendations), attend lectures and conferences, ask for meetings with them for guidance, sit in on classes
-learning several languages relevant to my specific field, so really, having some hard skills which made me more capable than others in carrying out certain aspects of research 
-specializing in an area which has not been tapped or engaging with it in an original way
-learning what matters in my field, what is a relevant or irrelevant question, I would suggest reading academic journals related to your area of interest and honing in on what key issues are coming up and also looking at university websites that post conference lectures and debates
I must be clear though, in working towards this I have lived in several countries and it has taken a lot to built up a knowledge base in a specific field. This has taken me time, and you may need to broaden your education and refine your interests before applying.
I was accepted last year into a top 20 school before attending the Courtauld and turned it down after being advised by professors I trust to reach higher because unfortunately, it is often the case that you cannot teach at a school ranked higher than what you attended for your PhD. This 'latter' is not a system I agree with but it is the truth.
I only say this based on what I know and 'propaganda' I have seen: DO NOT go into any masters which costs $50-100,000 under the impression that you will be accepted into the PhD afterwards. The only terminal masters which have a very strong track record (again from what I know) are Williams College and the Courtauld Institute. Be calculated and continue to reach out to professors for guidance. 
Apologies for the tangents and best of luck!! 

I don't think that's what anonymousbequest is saying at all. There is nothing undesirable about the job in question. What has changed is that a job that might have gone to a University of Kansas PhD at some point has now been given to a Harvard graduate, which means that the job pool is getting more and more competitive. Moreover, the examples you list are completely outdated; Elizabeth Broun received her doctorate in 1979. The job market has radically changed over the eight-year period since the financial bubble & recession, so reaching back 37 years is completely ludicrous. It's like me claiming that a PhD from the Catholic University of America will give me a chance to be the next Marjorie Perloff. 

In regards to Ivy League Schools, your sarcasm gets it completely wrong. I do not have an undergraduate degree from an Ivy League, or from an elite LAC. I received a very good education at a public school, but I will never be buoyed by the name of that institution. Because of this I've been forced to think & act very pragmatically. Every professor I spoke with told me to aim as high as possible when applying to graduate programs. This wasn't because they're myopic elitists, it's because they know the realities of the current job market at the moment, either through departmental hiring or through their own job searches. When it comes to applying for jobs, I will be happy with any tenure-track position, because as the number of candidates for these positions rapidly grows, actual TT openings are being cut left and right. I am sure some people are ok with working as adjuncts, or have the independent resources to do a PhD without needing it to lead to some form of stable employment. I am not one of those people, which is why I pay such close attention to the job market, candidate placement, and the shift towards adjunct labour. There is nothing elitist about this; if anything, I am more aware of the reality at hand because I come from a working-class background, and therefore need to think very hard about any academic decision I make. 

As a last note, those of us in this thread who are being more critical are not doing so out of malice. This has been said over and over. It is one thing to be critical of the cultural capital involved in the field in question, and quite another to be oblivious to it. There are programs I did not apply to, not because of any perceived scholarly inferiority, but because I couldn't justify it based on their placement records. No matter how much I agitate or protest, I don't have the ability to change the material conditions of academia. My political beliefs are more or less full fucking Communist, but I will be able to do more good (assuming academia has any political power) working from a position of employment, than I will if I'm precariously employed, or unemployed. I would rather push for that than live in some sort of fantasy land where good jobs are plentiful and the discipline is without hierarchy. Sorry if that rubs you the wrong way.