TakeMyCoffeeBlack

Well, they're more or less a top 20 (this will fluctuate from ranking to ranking, of course), so unless you're considering a top 5 against it, I'd say that the ranking isn't something to be too concerned about. I'd look into: how well do I fit into the program? Do the professors seem nice? How is their placement in general? What about their placement in my sub-field/regional/theoretical interests? It's hard to generalize these things, but I'd say that Northwestern competes with the best of them. Rankings are, in my opinion, "soft" - that is, they're based on reputation, which can change from year to year and polled person to polled person. So they may fluctuate between 15 and 25, but they're not going to be moving between 15 and 45 (at least not anytime soon).

Actually, everything I wrote was because I have taken theatre history classes (for four years, in fact). I changed course when I decided I didn't much care for the people who actually do theatre. I'm glad to see the personalities haven't changed much.

Yeeeeeeaaa, I'm funded

My status just changed to funding! Those who are still waiting, there is hope! 

Any USA applicants on "funding" with a confirmation email yet? Crossing my fingers that comes today! My target status changed from the incorrect "doctoral candidate" to graduates which is a relief!

It's possible they have only two boxes to tick? "Doctoral Candidate" or "Independent Researcher" - or something along those lines? No letter/email on my part, and I'm holding my breath until I get more thorough confirmation - but there is an option in the lefthand menu to accept the award. So... who knows. 

Excellent!

My application status went to funding ! !  "Graduate Studies of all Disciplines 2018/2019" DAAD NY
 
UNREAL

My application now indicates "Funding." Has anyone else's changed? (US long-term research)

My application now indicates "Funding." Has anyone else's changed? (US long-term research)

That makes sense. I guess I was just a little confused. I had understood the question as something along the lines of: DAAD doesn't require proof of admission to apply and win the scholarship; you received notification of admission, and wanted to alert DAAD in the event that it may matter/expedite their transmission of information to you; DAAD responded that they wanted something more official than the e-mail for this purpose - what do I do? Or have I missed something?
In any case, it does sound a little unusual if it's true that you need to show admission to get the award. Which scholarship in particular were you applying for?

Update: now it's blank. Sigh. I had forgotten how stomachache-inducing this waiting is.

USA applicant here for Study Scholarships for Graduates of All Disciplines- my status changed to rejected and I had a letter in the DAAD Portal. 
Here's some info from my message: "The Selection Committee had to decide between 379 applications and was able to award 65 scholarships." 
That's about a 17% success rate. Of course I'm disappointed, but it was much, much more competitive than I expected, so I'm trying not to beat myself up about it. I didn't go to a prestigious college, and it looks like most of the winners from previous years did. 
On the bright side, I've already been accepted to my top choice Master's program in Germany! I'll be going anyway and funding it myself. I've already applied for a dorm with the Studierendenwerk and everything, so I'm trying not to let this get me down. 
For other USA applicants who's status is "Selection Made"-- viel glück!!!

It doesn't matter how pretty or how ugly any guy's next girlfriend is. She's a human being, and to consider her an upgrade or a downgrade is degrading, not only to her, but to you (or whoever the point of reference is). This arbitrary "ranking" of women is offensive and retrogressive. 

Look, Loric, I have no doubt you are extremely qualified on the topic, especially in comparison to me. But there are facts and there are opinions. As far as "theatre as literature" goes, there isn't much "fact" to go on. For that matter, there isn't much sure "fact" to go on when it comes to the source of our contemporary Shakespearean texts before the first folio.

Actually, everything I wrote was because I have taken theatre history classes (for four years, in fact). I changed course when I decided I didn't much care for the people who actually do theatre. I'm glad to see the personalities haven't changed much.

Actually, everything I wrote was because I have taken theatre history classes (for four years, in fact). I changed course when I decided I didn't much care for the people who actually do theatre. I'm glad to see the personalities haven't changed much.

Actually, everything I wrote was because I have taken theatre history classes (for four years, in fact). I changed course when I decided I didn't much care for the people who actually do theatre. I'm glad to see the personalities haven't changed much.

Just a couple things:
 
1.) I don't think you actually read what I wrote. I think you're stuck in this alternative universe and you refuse to take a look out the window.
 
2.) It's extremely offensive for you to project your view of what constitutes happiness onto others (like saying you don't know why your aunt is happy, and that it's sad to you that her successful career is in itself fulfilling). We all have different paths and goals in our lives. A past boss made a great point (in response to some people teasing a gay friend about not yet having found "the one" in his mid thirties): "Some people just see one path for happiness and fulfillment and feel bad for anyone who hasn't taken their path. But the fact is that not everyone may need or want the same things." He's right, and it's extremely rude and ignorant to do that. 
 
3.) First, you clearly DO have prospects for a relationship, otherwise you wouldn't be open to one. Simple as that. Second, why do you have to meet someone in the next year or two in order to be married by 30? That's silly and rather immature, because chances are you're going to need to find someone with a similar vision for the future as you, and that probably means a short relationship and a short engagement. Who knows, maybe when you're 29 you'll meet someone, fall in love, get engaged and get married within those 365 days. It's possible - and the very fact that you believe otherwise is itself a limitation of the chances for success in potential future relationships. You are choosing only to see one possible way for this all to work out the way you want it to, and short of that you've failed and are going to live a long, miserable life alone. The problem is, that's not at all how reality works. 
 
You really need to start looking to empower yourself. I truly believe that the people best suited for relationships, are the people who are comfortable with themselves outside of a relationship. You ought to consider reading The Feminine Mystique, or at least reading the synopsis on Wikipedia... In some ways, I'm hopeful that graduate school and living in a new city will provide you the opportunity to open your eyes and not see so narrowly.

There's a logical issue in your assertion. You're suggesting that what we read as Shakespeare "is a complete fabrication" (which is an absurd statement in itself, as 1.) there's evidence to suggest that the first folio is a compilation of cue scripts, actor's scripts/notes, and perhaps Shakespeare's own notes - and even if it were just a cue script and much of it were (is) fabricated, that does not make it a complete fabrication), which should then divorce it from performance (which is not what good Shakespearean scholarship does) and permit it to be evaluated on its own as a literary piece. 
 
What about later theatre? I don't think anyone would have much trouble placing Arthur Miller or Tennessee Williams within their respective literary epochs. 
 
I agree with you that written theatre needs to be evaluated within the context of the playwright's intention for it to be performed, but the idea that we can't consider theatre literature is a bit absurd, no?

There's a logical issue in your assertion. You're suggesting that what we read as Shakespeare "is a complete fabrication" (which is an absurd statement in itself, as 1.) there's evidence to suggest that the first folio is a compilation of cue scripts, actor's scripts/notes, and perhaps Shakespeare's own notes - and even if it were just a cue script and much of it were (is) fabricated, that does not make it a complete fabrication), which should then divorce it from performance (which is not what good Shakespearean scholarship does) and permit it to be evaluated on its own as a literary piece. 
 
What about later theatre? I don't think anyone would have much trouble placing Arthur Miller or Tennessee Williams within their respective literary epochs. 
 
I agree with you that written theatre needs to be evaluated within the context of the playwright's intention for it to be performed, but the idea that we can't consider theatre literature is a bit absurd, no?

Actually, everything I wrote was because I have taken theatre history classes (for four years, in fact). I changed course when I decided I didn't much care for the people who actually do theatre. I'm glad to see the personalities haven't changed much.

They most certainly were, just likely not in a complete script (since that would take forever and cost a lot of money). They weren't just recorded twenty years later for posterity (well, they kind of were) based on memory, written pieces already existed. Shakespeare didn't dictate extemporaneously to the leads, and the leads, no matter how good their memories, did not just jump on stage having heard it from Shakespeare.

HC, have you gone through a cycle yet? 

Actually, everything I wrote was because I have taken theatre history classes (for four years, in fact). I changed course when I decided I didn't much care for the people who actually do theatre. I'm glad to see the personalities haven't changed much.