zielschmerz

I'd distinguish between "looking over" and proofreading. You don't need anyone who knows anything about literature/literary criticism to proofread, just someone who 1. knows about the English language and 2. is not you. Proofing is a much less laborious task, which is definitely something to keep in mind when you are asking for help. On the other hand, when it comes to making sure your arguments are clear and adequate, you do want someone involved in lit studies. (My parents are not academics, and I sent them an award-winning paper: "That was great, sweetie! I think we understood some of it.") But this should be something your professors can do, even if they don't specialize in your time period (I would think). What a specialist would be uniquely able to do is, say, tell you, "You don't mention the work of so-and-so, and to readers in the field that's a glaring absence." Two caveats there: 1. I am entering as a Victorianist, and I would not trust myself to be able to give you that advice; you might need a real prof for that or do without. 2. The professor who told me I needed to include Sharon Cameron's Impersonality into my paper about a Modernist writer was herself a Victorianist, so people might surprise you. A handful of other thoughts: My paper on a 'High Modernist' did not prevent me from getting accepted as a Victorianist into super Victorian-heavy depts (Rutgers, Bloomington in particular). Of course, modernism is way closer to the Victorian era than Milton, but I still say don't be afraid to have a fantastic Milton writing sample, and then use your personal statement to package yourself as a Victorianist. No offense to my fellow 19thC people but, damn, girl—if you can tackle Milton I'm sure you can take on the Brontës. I'd be much more concerned if you were moving the opposite direction, you know? A modernism person who wants to be a medievalist has way more catching up to do (languages and whatnot) than vice versa. And speaking of languages... follow your heart, now... but I bet some comparative lit people would be all over you.

Fit doesn't have to be faculty, either. Reading groups, annual events/seminars, teaching resources, archives, "center for X," "institute of Y" and so on.

What would I do differently? I would use the writing sample that I used in every application that got me an acceptance in all my applications. However, the take-away from this for someone applying might be the opposite: don't put all your eggs in one basket. But if you do: pick the best piece of writing. Go with quality and ambition over length-adherence and specialty-relevance. Also, be super organized! I got lucky, but had some close calls. Triple check deadlines (I got it into my head JHU's was the 9th; it was the 6th.) Do a spreadsheet of who wants GRE subject scores, who accepts electronic transcripts, etc. etc. Get an early start on sending everything, because you never know what problems you'll encounter, and circa December, a lot of offices start closing for the holidays. I don't remember details, but I know I wasted money messing up sending subject test scores unnecessarily/to the school not the dept. etc., paying for expedited shipping on writing samples/transcripts--stuff like that. Finally, after a computer disaster this month, I would underscore the importance of external hard drives/Dropbox/Box.com/et al. Back up everything. Constantly.

I imagine it is true that hiring committees have more nuanced understandings. That said, I saw a forum post on the Chronicle (okay, so most anecdotal evidence ever) by a prof who said that her dean actually got involved in the hiring. Long story short: the good news is hiring committees will go with the candidate from the lower ranked school based on merit; the bad news is, this dean, at least, was in a position to say, "No, hire the one with brand recognition." (To impress prospective freshmen's parents? I don't even know.) But what makes my feelings even more mixed is that -- yes, of course, a job is a job, and beggars can't be choosers... but the idea of arriving all bright-eyed and bushy-tailed to a department that, unbeknownst to me, resents my presence is...not ideal (read: kind of makes me want to cry).

I have wondered about the placement stats. People above have mentioned the degree prestige issue in hiring. I had a professor who said "There is no point in applying to anything but the best programs," and so on. And then you have these NRC rankings that put Washington State over Princeton in job placement. ??? How can both of these realities be true? I want the snobby rankings fetishism to be bogus, but I worry that places just find sneaky ways to fudge their stats.

You and all the assholes she had to put up with while she was alive, buddy.

Rutgers people seem so NICE!

I'm choosing between Rutgers and Cornell myself. Utterly torn. If anyone has insight, do share.

Ew, this is gross. Forget all the problems with standardized testing -- ETS ends up being such a big expense. What a racket.

This is nice advice, thanks. What if you're leaning toward one school, and two have recruitment days on the same date?

I did! I know what you mean (I think). I just want to be able to visualize myself somewhere. There's also a paranoid part of me that wants to get in before they change their mind.