Pamphilia

All of the professors who looked over my application materials last year before I applied suggested I play down my interest in and experience teaching, at least in my SOP (not necessarily on the CV). They didn't suggest that I cut out any discussion of teaching entirely, but cautioned me that adcoms would be looking for evidence of interest and competence in research rather than teaching, and that an over-emphasis on teaching in the SOP can actually be detrimental to one's application because it makes one look less research-focused. Obviously, this really depends on the program, but it's something to keep in mind.

Yes, this. And may I warn any menfolk out there that the so-called "girls" in your program will no doubt prefer not to be infantilized, either. Girls = female children. Female graduate students = adults, not children. Please show the women of your program (and your world) some respect. And if the men out there who use this kind of language "don't mean it that way"--too bad. It still comes off as (and simply is) disrespectful and condescending,

Rankings systems are a touchy subject. Especially for humanities programs, they are wildly inaccurate and one should always take them with a grain of salt. That said, a program's perceived reputation IS important and does play a role. Pedigree is something we should be skeptical about, but (unfortunately or not) it can make a significant difference when you are on the job market. Now, that does not mean that you're screwed if you don't go to Harvard, by any means. And it also doesn't mean that "rankings" as put out by USNWR or phd.org have any significance. Perceived reputation is important, ranking is not. Sometimes perceived reputation corresponds to rank, sometimes it does not. To answer the original question, the perceived reputation of your specific PhD department is going to be far more important than the perceived reputation of the overall institution (at least in the American job market; I can't speak for overseas). More than that, the perceived reputation of the department in your subfield is more important than the reputation of the department over all. Basically, it comes down to (this is not in order): * Departmental job placement (and this doesn't just mean "rates," because departments can and do manipulate those rates; you want to find out specifically where and in what timeline grads of the program are getting jobs) * Reputation of your the department in your subfield * Your fit in the department * Who you worked with (this is a huge one--who are your mentors, who is your advisor?) * The work you produce and have produced in your department * Your ability to convey and communicate that work to others (in job talks, conferences, teaching, etc.) There's more, but this is what I can think of off the top of my head. Final FYI. Programs that rank at the top of USNWR or phd.org DO NOT necessarily boast the strongest placement records. Those kind of rankings are almost always outdated and reflect outdated perceptions of the programs. I did a looooot of research into this last year, and many of the programs at the top of the list have not been placing well in the last few years. Some other programs (many from the #10-25 range) are placing their grads into much more prestigious jobs--and at a much higher rate overall--than the typical "top" programs. But, some of the typical "top" programs are still definitely "top." The most important thing to do when looking into reputation (in my opinion) is to find out where, how frequently, and how quickly programs (and subfields within those programs) place their grads. As one should do with all discussion of rank or reputation, don't take this post too seriously. But I hope it helps nonetheless.

Penn State's English program (can't speak for comp lit, creative writing, or other departments) doesn't have a terminal MA per se, unless they've just started a new one that I don't know about. Students apply to the MA for the MA-to-PhD track; MA admits are awarded five or six years of funding because they are expected to go on to the PhD. Of course, some head out to other programs after completing the MA, but they don't have a stand-alone MA program. The wording on the website, if I recall, is really confusing about the difference between the MA and PhD tracks there--which isn't really a difference at all. So, if the admits on the board are for English, they are most likely for the PhD (which is actually the MA for those applying without an MA in hand). And yes, they take very few applicants with MAs in hand to the PhD program. Does this make sense? I hope it helps! Edited to add: Penn State has also historically trickled out its acceptance notifications. Last year they began notifying in early February but kept an unofficial wait list until April, accepting wait-listees periodically in the meantime. So, especially for a program like Penn State, it ain't over til it's over.

Though this might run contrary to the other advice given here, I'd highly recommend visiting both schools. You really can't tell about a department (or location) until you visit; it can make a HUGE difference. If you're completely sure you're going to turn down one school for another no matter what, let them know as soon as possible. But if you have any doubts, it would probably behoove you (or anyone) to visit before you make a final decision. Congrats!

I think this is a good idea, except for the bolded part. I'd be very wary about phrasing an inquiry like that for a number of reasons (not least, it might come off as sounding rather presumptuous). However, MM's idea of contacting them (the DGA or someone making decisions, not just the grad assistant/secretary), letting them know you're excited but that this is a tricky situation, etc., might be very beneficial as you suss out this situation. Also, congrats! Getting an interview for Duke Lit is HUGE. Edited for phrasing/typos.

Interviews for English are rare; in-person interviews a la Emory and NYU are rarer. Stanford and Northwestern have done phone interviews in the past, but Northwestern at least did not interview last year. Different adcom chairs, different strokes.

Hm, well, it does make sense to me that a prof who focuses on Dante (and who is therefore, I'm guessing, a Renaissance poetry/poetics scholar?) might not feel comfortable directing a thesis on a writer who is so far removed from his specialty as McCarthy. It would be like asking a C20 Americanist to direct a thesis on Mary Wroth: quite a difficult undertaking and perhaps rather out of that person's depth such that it would do the student a disservice. I am not quite sure what to tell you other than keep doing what you've been doing--that is, reaching out to other faculty in the department who might be better suited to your needs, and asking profs you know to point you in the right direction. Perhaps you can talk to the undergraduate director and/or director of the honors program? I know that the director of my undergrad honors program did sometimes help match students with faculty for thesis projects. If you are set on having (or required to take) a thesis advisor with whom you've already worked, you might consider reorienting your thesis in a different direction that aligns more directly with the faculty you know and trust (though I'll be the first to admit it can be extremely difficult to write a thesis on a topic you don't love from the outset, because it's very common for people to end up hating even their once-beloved topics by the end!). If you do this, you might also be able to set up an independent study with an C20 Americanist to work on your McCarthy project. That way, it might be possible to have your cake and eat it too. What year are you in school? When do you have to have your thesis advisor set? If you're a junior, you could take a C20 American class next semester and try to forge a strong enough relationship with the prof to work ask her/him to advise your thesis. If your program has a separate Comp Lit department (or Rhetoric, even), you might also look there for potential advisors to widen your net a bit. I completely understand your frustrations! It must be really difficult to position yourself so effectively for the honors program and have such a speed bump pop up in your way. The good news is that it sounds like you are a great student and very focused. Ask around for help: from your advisor, the undergrad director, the honors program director, professors you trust. Keep working at it, be a squeaky wheel, and it will hopefully all turn out for the best. Good luck!

Ignore this post!

I'm inclined to disagree that writing a thesis doesn't matter, but not because it adds or detracts anything from your CV. I believe writing a thesis as an undergrad is important because it gives you a taste for what a large research project entails. It's nothing compared to grad work, of course, but provides invaluable experience for a person interested in going to grad school--even if the lessons learned from such experience only boil down to "loved it" or "hated it." That said, it's not necessary to do an honors thesis, but I would really recommend taking on some kind of large, extended research project before deciding whether you really want to go to grad school. An independent study culminating in a big paper/research project, perhaps, if the thesis doesn't work out. Good luck to you!

This isn't really relevant to lit programs. English/comp lit/rhetoric students are not accepted or funded by individual professors, but by the program as a whole.

Davis is a great program, for sure, but...well, it's a UC school in the same budget crisis as the other UC schools. Also, apparently (if the information I received was correct), it is rare for humanities students to receive the university-wide fellowships for which they are nominated (which are supposed to be more generous)--it seems those fellowships tend to go to students in the hard sciences. I was accepted last year but would rather not go into detail on this forum about the funding package. I will say that while funding was guaranteed for for five years, it was iffy. That said, Davis is an awesome program, very up and coming, with a university administration that is extremely supportive (read: financially supportive) of the Graduate School. Regarding unequal funding: out of all the programs where I was accepted last year, only one (a private school) offered equal funding to all students. I know it's not the case for all state schools, but most of them--and indeed, all of those to which I applied, let alone was accepted--offer fellowship- as well as TA-ship-based funding, which means not everyone makes the same amount. Some of them give extreeeeemely generous fellowships. But, they only go to certain students. It is also important to note that often these fellowships only last for the first year or two, and after that, you're funded by TA-ships which pay far less. At one program, my stipend would have been cut in half by the second year; the first-year fellowship I was offered was double the TA stipend (which would have provided my funding after the first year). I also second everything Soxpuppet said.

What do you want to study? Why do you want to study it at those programs? In order to give any advice, we need to know where your academic interests lie (even then, beware of anyone assessing your "chances" without having read your writing sample and statement of purpose). Also, the importance of fit cannot be overestimated in admissions. So, why do those programs appeal to you? ETA: As a student at Carolina, you have wonderful resources in the English faculty for grad application questions. Start with them. They will be able to assess your profile and abilities much more keenly than anyone one these boards can.

I had no grad experience, nor did 75% of my cohort. I was accepted to one program where not a single incoming student had an MA in English (this is not to say that none had done grad work; some had MAs in other fields, or MFAs; no doubt some took grad classes as undergrads). I was also accepted to a program where 50% were incoming with MAs in English. The question of whether or not an MA in English will help you or hurt you in English PhD admissions is very debatable, and depends largely on the program in question. For the record, I was advised strongly against pursuing a terminal MA before applying to the PhD by my undergrad mentors, but I know people for whom it was a great experience, and indeed the reason they are in strong programs now. In general, I can't imagine that taking grad classes either as an undergrad or in a non-degree capacity after your BA would be anything but beneficial (so long as you do well). But for many programs, that step isn't fully necessary. It really depends on the individual--where she stands as a student, a scholar, and an applicant, and where she is applying. OP, if your application is strong, I wouldn't sweat the lack of prior grad experience (except in the case of schools like Maryland, which only accept those with an MA in hand, as mentioned above).

Forgive me if I seem like a jerk, and know that I realize this advice is not universal, but perhaps it can apply to a wide range of applicants-- The answer is, of course, you should send your best work. I am seeing a lot of people lamenting that their best work is not the most fitting for their proposed project of study. If this is the case, you fix it! If your best work is not the piece that best fits your application, make it work anyway. Revise, revise, revise, so that your best work fits in some way (methodology, etc). Or, take your not-best but better-fitting work and revise it until it is your best work (that was my approach). You should be revising the pants off of your writing sample, anyway (even your best ever A+ paper can be wildly improved, I promise), and making it into something better than what was previously your best work.

More even than checking out who used to place well, try to find out what programs' placement rates are *now* (overall and in your subfield) and *where* programs are placing (the where is important to see if a program consistencly places grads at locations/institutions where you would like to work; after all, we are all after any job but we also all have designs on certain kinds of jobs). Some of the old powerhouses, who have names and reputations that still make most of us shiver a little, are not placing as strongly as they used to. Many of them have been struggling to get their grads jobs (any jobs, not just prestigious ones) in the last few years. And there are other programs that might have been regarded as the middling sort previously, but which are beginning to dominate placement over the old powerhouses. This is why it's not only important to check current faculty pages, which reflect what programs were places well from last year up until 30 or 40 years ago, but see where recent grads are ending up, if anywhere. ETA: I know that the NRC report is trying to take the above into account, but it's very hard to make heads or tails of the thing without a strong stats background. At least to me. It's over my head.

Congrats!!! That's awesome.

I had a couple of phone dates with professors before applying, and they were largely positive. I spoke to two profs at one program and one at another; I was accepted to both programs. It is totally stressful! I feel your pain. I would recommend going in with a list of questions to ask--specific questions not only about the program (questions that can't be answered on the website or by the grad coordinator), but about the professor's work (teaching and research). It sucks to have them ask, "So, do you have any questions for me?" and have your mind go blank. Be prepared to ask a lot of questions yourself, but also be prepared to listen to a long spiel and only respond briefly. Here is my most important tip: make sure you are familiar with the professor's work before the interview. Read as much as you can, and as much recent work as you can. Do not go into this thing cold or clueless about the professor and her work. Treat this like a real interview. Know your own application, know your work, be prepared to mention scholars/primary texts--though also be prepared for the fact that this stuff might not come up. It is far less important for you to be able to explain how and why you came to your current interests than it is to be able to discuss your interests themselves, where they fit into the current academic conversation and where you're interested in taking that conversation. Know the professor's work, but understand that she might not try to talk about herself too much. Understand she also might want to talk about herself at length. I would definitely NOT ask for any tips or help with your SOP or application. At best, it's a bit tacky. If she brings if up or offers to help, great. But I'd really recommend against bringing it up yourself. Ask yourself: if you were in the professor's position, what would you want to hear from an applicant? Here is a list of what things I'd recommend you keep in mind. They are more or less things that I did did for my phone dates (and/or things I realize now that I should have done): 1. Write a list of specific questions. 2. Be prepared to give a summary of your writing sample, as well as your research interests and where you hope to go in the future. Be prepared to be specific about all of this. 3. Know the rest of your application well. 4. Familiarize yourself with the professor's (current) scholarship. 5. Take notes while the professor talks, or pay close attention so you can respond well. 6. Have everything you think you might need for the conversation at your fingertips so you can refer to it easily. This might include: list of questions, notes on the prof's work, your application, your writing sample and/or notes on your writing sample, water in case you get parched, etc. 7. Make really sure beforehand if you are supposed to call the prof or she is supposed to call you. I hope all of this doesn't freak you out! Good luck, and try to enjoy it!

I'm not sure how great the department as a whole is in this area, but WashU has at least one great prof working in minority/Asian American lit (mostly contemporary, I think).

Haha, I actually knew that number, but I am bad at rounding. I have poor life skills.

It was Penn rather than Penn State, and they had about 800 apps and accepted SIX. Not yielded six after accepting more, they accepted six. Apparently it was only supposed to be five! Anyway, yes, this is the reality of applying to grad school in English. I cannot think of any programs off the top of my head (any at all, not just so-called "top" ones or Ivies) that have acceptance rates higher than 10%. Most "top" programs (for PhDs in English, that is) average acceptance rates of 2-4% each year (I feel like it bears saying that schools in the Ivy league sports conference are, despite popular mythology, not necessarily the most competitive; they vary as well--Penn obviously accepted only a fraction of a percent last year but I know another Ivy in the USNWR "top ten" accepted close to 10%). I called the graduate admissions office at Duke last year with a question and the lady there felt compelled to tell me that English has the most competitive admissions of *any program in the whole of Duke's Graduate School.* Yes, grad admissions sucks in English, for applicants and the poor suckers on the adcoms alike. But you have it in your power to do it! Revise revise revise your writing sample and SOP! Cornell may have gotten apx. 900 apps last year, but I guarantee that a huuge number of their applicants were clueless about the process and thought it was like undergrad admissions. Use it to your advantage: own the writing sample, kill the SOP, and make your fit super clear (not in just the fit paragraph; make all the subtext in your app demonstrate your wonderful fit). Just doing these things, I'd wager, will put you at a great advantage next to many applicants.

I know this is off topic from the original question, and I know that contacting profs pre-application in English is a contentious topic, but I just feel compelled to throw this out there. I disagree that English applicants "must not" contact potential professors. Certainly applicants are safest not contacting anyone, because they do not run the risk of "pulling a boner" (as my grandfather would hilariously say). But it can in some cases and in certain circumstances be quite helpful; I know for a fact that contacting professors helped me (with regard to admission in one case and fellowship awards alongside admission in two other cases), because the profs whom I contacted and who advocated for my application told me so. And I only contacted professors in the first place because of advice from my own undergrad mentors. Nevertheless, I wouldn't go out advising all (or most) applicants to contact professors. It's true that it is a risky move, and in most cases is not worth it (frankly, I am lucky that I managed to not screw it up, especially considering how clueless I was before applying). It is equally true that it can pay off in particular circumstances, with particular faculty members and particular applicants. Just to go confusing the poor applicants even more!! Sorry.

Thanks for your response too! As much as I disagree with you, I find this question quite interesting. Of course I am not suggesting that simply having "PhD" after one's name makes a person an expert, any more than I presume you are suggesting that three years of law school makes one an expert (if you are suggesting this, your argument is, I'm afraid, utterly silly*). I do take issue with your suggestion that most professors are not experts. Of course they are experts! (No doubt some charlatans slip through the cracks, as they do in every profession.) But they are experts in the field of academic study, the academic study of their fields. Again I suspect that this argument may be based on a misunderstanding (or underestimation) of the academic discipline and the rigor of academic training. No, academics are not experts in the same way as professionals are. But professionals are not experts in the way that academics are, either, which is precisely why professionals are not necessarily qualified to teach at the university level (just as PhD in poli sci is not qualified to practice law). You seem to think that I am underestimating the rigor of law school and its "intensive graduate training in jurisprudence." I'm certainly not doing that--it's of course rigorous and profound training. But again, it does not qualify a person to teach in the social sciences (political science) because it does not train one as a social or political scientist. It trains one to be a lawyer. Your comparison of a JD to a PhD in American studies is facile at best. And once again, it suggests to me that you don't fully grasp the nature of academics or graduate training at the academic level (as opposed to professional school such as law school). A PhD in Am Studies (with a focus on literature) trains one in a way much more closely aligned with an English graduate program than a law school does with political science as a discipline. American Studies doctorates are trained in theory, criticism, literature, pedagogy, and so forth, just as English PhDs are. Law school graduates receive a completely different kind of training than do poli sci PhDs, because ultimately they are trained for different purposes: law school prepares a person specifically for a professional career, and doesn't necessarily immerse its students in the body of work that is foundational to the social sciences or the ongoing conversations about the state of social sciences or the discipline of political science, such as the theories and criticisms that I mentioned in my previous post. Re: those theories. I'm in tue humanities, so I can't really name specific theorists. Sorry. But just because I'm not qualified to discuss specific social/political science theorists and theories doesn't mean that they are not integral to the academic study of political science. Besides, this may be beside the point. My earlier point was that political science professors always draw on the wealth of knowledge that they have accrued by participating in the larger discipline of political science even when they are speaking or teaching about a specific topic (e.g., con law) that it is possible to grasp well without a social science background. * I hope I don't sound insulting or anything by using "silly" here; I'm in a hurry and that's the best word the springs to mind at the moment, inadequate as it is.

I sort of feel like this is akin to suggesting that a person with a degree in linguistics, or a degree in the pedagogy of English composition, ought to be hired as English literature professors. After all, a linguist knows a lot about language, right? A comp teacher knows about good writing. Of course these individuals have skills that help us understand English and might make us better at reading and communicating about literature. But these people are not qualified to teach literature classes. They are qualified to teach linguistics and comp classes. Proposing that JDs should, generally, be hired as political science professors strikes me as being similar to this example: sure, JDs become experts in the building blocks of political science (as a linguist is an expert in the building blocks of literature--that is, language), but they are not trained as experts in political science itself. Furthermore, arguing that a JD would be qualified to teach certain courses and therefore ought to be appointed to political science faculty seems a bit silly, and seems to reveal a fundamental misunderstanding about the way academia works (I am purposefully here discussing appointments to faculty, not adjunct positions). Professors draw not only on their particular specialties for their classes, the but whole wealth of background knowledge that they gain as experts in the discipline as a whole. To teach a class under the banner of political science, even one as specific to legal studies as a Constitutional law class, still requires the professor to have strong (read: intensive graduate level) training in the whole of the social science of poli sci--that is, political philosophy, theories of social science, and so forth. Academic areas of focus (i.e., Constitutional law) exist in conversation with one's general discipline, and a JD is not trained in the general discipline of political science. She is trained in the discipline of law.

Short answer: the study of law is not the same thing as the study of political science. In many ways law and poli sci are very different animals, and equating one with the other is, in my humble (humanities-steeped) opinion, shortsighted.