Pamphilia

I won't have one. We just had to put down my cat last night. I've had him since I was six. I'm sad. I'm also sending good vibes to your poor doggy, downtownchick.

Really? Well I have no academic publications (a couple of minor pop magazine articles) so yikes. But none of the people I know in [top, like Penn] English PhD programs had publications as undergrads. From what I understand it's more of just a cherry on top for those going in without an MA, as it's very rare for English undergrads to publish. Can't speak fo standards for a applicants who already have MAs. At least, I desperately hope this is the case.

God, this is uncomfortable. But, I think it will be a good little exercise! I've been feeling very discouraged lately, to the point that I've been bumming out everyone around me. Good things about Pamphilia: * 3.9 GPA from a badass undergrad with a top-ranked English program * 2 LORs from really well-known and well-respected scholars in my subfield; third LOR from a total rockstar in a different (but unrelated) subfield * Completed an undergrad honors thesis, advised by one of my well-known and well-respected LOR-writers; revised and edited it to the point where even I am happy enough to use it for my writing sample * My incredibly scary but brilliant undergrad advisor went over and revised my SOP and my 20+ page writing sample multiple times * Excellent GRE General scores: 800V/710Q/5.5AW * Excellent GRE Subject score: 710 (96th percentile) * What I feel is a pretty good SOP and writing sample * Talked to a prof at one of the programs to which I'm applying who said she feels confident I will get in somewhere! Yikes. That was scary and hard and made me feel like a jerk.

1. I wish that I had looked more rigorously into fee waivers. 2. I wish that I had visited schools and talked to faculty in person prior to applying, rather than just emailing. I think I am weird and annoying, but apparently I interview very well and generally make a good first impression. Who knew??? Anyway, since most English programs don't do interviews, I wish that I had a chance to establish my sparkling personality in person. 3. I wish that I were applying during better economic times--for example, a year when Penn English was accepting more than 5 of 680 applicants.

I work as an English teacher at a tutoring center (mostly ESOL) and sometime freelance proofreader, and I occasionally I gig as a freelance dancer/dance instructor. I will also be starting an office manager/admin-type job soon so I can get some benefits--hooray dental!

Gah! Yes. That filled me with SO much rage.

Holy shit. Admitting five, or aiming for a cohort of five?

Oh, pants. I think it is totally ridiculous how any discussion regarding computers--even one that, unlike this one, is purely based on objective, technical stats--gets heated so quickly. They are machines, not our mothers. Anyway, to the "boy" or "girl" who got annoyed with me for insulting the Macbook Air: Look, I actually agree that it's a terrifically cool machine. I agree that it would be a fantastic secondary computer, particularly for someone who travels a lot. I agree it's superfast. I also TOTALLY want one. However, after coming very close to purchasing one myself (and therefore doing substantial research and talking to a lot of Apple experts) a few months ago, I would very much disagree that the Air would be a perfectly adequate primary computer (even for me, and I honestly don't need anything special), especially given its high price. Granted, in my previous post I was very negative about the Air and didn't qualify my negativity or contextualize it in anyway, largely because I didn't feel like writing a paragraph on the Air, and I still don't. Computer talk bores me, and no doubt I would piss someone off no matter how careful I was to be friendly or how technical I kept the talk. So, I'm not going to get into the specifics about why it wouldn't be a good primary computer or practical given the cost. I'm going to peace out. Peace out.

Right on, dude. Have you been reading about the work that David Teie's been doing on congnition and emotional response to music?

Meow to the anti-Mac tirade! I made the switch to a Mac after being so frustrated by PCs constantly falling apart, needing maintenance, having virus/spyware problems, etc. I realize that PCs are better for some people and suit their purposes better, but I am really happy with my first generation MacBook Pro and will definitely be getting another Apple (probably just a MacBook--I realized I don't need all the extra power of the Pro) when I next get a new lappy. And I recommend them very highly. Yes, Macs are much more expensive upfront, but they have far fewer problems, you don't have to buy expensive software just to make them run well, as they run well on their own, they last a long time, they are sturdy, and Apple reaaaally tends to take care of their customers well for maintenance, etc. I also HATE Windows. New version, old version, whatever. I agree with this. I think it's silly when people claim that the only benefit to a Mac is style. Yeah, style is one reason that someone would get a BMW over a Kia, but another big reason is quality. For me, I like Macs because I think the quality is just so much higher. Yes, you can get a very high-quality PC, but it too will cost you a pretty penny. Well, I'm not one of those proselytizing Cult of Apple nuts, but I am a convert and will recommend a Mac if someone asks for my opinion. So, re: OP's question, it really depends on what you're looking for. I realize now that, personally, I don't need all the power of a MacBook Pro, so I would say just go for a MacBook unless you're going to be doing a lot of video editing and such (I do music editing, but even just a MacBook is fine for that). DON'T get a MacBook Air. It's stupid, useless, and overpriced. And get Apple Care.

I said 6-10 years simply because the OP will only be 20 when s/he graduates, and as I understand it the median age at such programs is 27 or 28. Also, I think all of this REALLY depends on what degree and program someone is going for. The impression that I get is that less work/life experience/maturity-in-years is required for the academic sides of these programs and much more for the professional sides. Yet it's also important to keep in mind that some of the professional degree track students do interview the academic applicants, and bring their own biases in. It's also important to keep in mind that, as established, this is NOT my area and I am getting all of this info second hand (though I ran my post past my sis after the fact and she said "YES! People need to hear this!"). But what is that annoying expression? "YMMV."

My sister is a current grad student at Fletcher and she interviews several applicants each week (the grad students there play a huge role in admissions). She complains often about young students straight out of undergrad who think that doing well in college qualifies them for the program. She also has spoken negatively several times about students who have graduated from undergrad early and are applying straight to program because (in her opinion) that indicates absolutely nothing about a candidate's ability for success in grad school. In fact, I think she usually knocks off a few points for it because she thinks it shows a lack of maturity and experience. Experience is EVERYTHING for Fletcher, apparently. I don't want to be mean, but if my sister's opinions represent the program's leanings in any way, they rarely even give a second glance at a 20-year-old applicant. If you want to be considered for a program like Fletcher, you need to get a LOT more experience under your belt--and I'm not talking like, a year or two interning on the Hill or anything.* My sister would tell you to go get out in the world and work/intern/get some experience, and come back in 6-10 years. Sorry, I know this is probably not what you wanted to hear. But since she's been home for the holidays she has complained many times about applicants in your position. *By the way, doing things like interning on the Hill or for a state legislature may get you good contacts to get better work experience which is very, very key (my sister's ridiculously impressive experience can all be traced to the contacts she made many years ago interning for a Congressman), but on its own that is not something a program like Fletcher would find impressive. Especially if you get a native Washingtonian like my sister interviewing you. She is totally put off when it comes to applicants who have worked in DC for a few years and get all puffed up about it. To those of us who grew up there, DC is just another city and simply working in the District isn't particularly special. Again, I'm really sorry to be such a harsh buzzkill. And obviously I have no firsthand experience with this stuff, but I do hear about it a LOT from someone on the inside. Go get experience, especially overseas (if possible, with locals and not with a bunch of American "do-gooders" who never actually interact with the locals).

My General and Subject scores were sent together, and my online status page for Princeton indicated immediately that the General score had been received, but it took them well over a month to update it with "Subject: Received." I am sure you are all good.

I've never heard of a school insisting that GRE scores be taken within months of the application date. That sounds a little nuts to me (I'm sure it's true for some schools and some disciplines, I've just never heard of it; as leo89 said, check what's standard in your discipline). The scores are valid for five years from ETS, though a couple of schools I looked at (none I applied to, if I'm not mistaken...) asked for the test to be taken within the last three years. Personally, I took my subject test within a year of graduating college because I didn't want to be too rusty on the literature (though I also studied every day for a month straight). Come to think of it, I also took the general GRE within a year of graduating because I didn't want to be too far removed from my studying habits. These approaches must have worked because I did really well on both--MUCH better, I'm sure, than if I'd taken them this year. I took the subject test more than two years ago and the general test about 22 months ago. I HIGHLY recommend taking the tests way in advance like this, because it was one less thing I had to worry about during the application season. I was able to focus entirely on my applications, and didn't have to bother studying for an idiotic exam or two. I also didn't have to panic about whether my scores would arrive in time. As for waiting until the "new" general GRE comes out--well, there are a couple of reasons why I wouldn't bother doing this. Firstly, from what I understand, ETS has promised to change the GRE several times in the past few years and hasn't followed through. Secondly, with the current version of the test, there are countless study aids at your disposal, countless books and courses that teach you how to take the test (which, for GRE purposes, is far more important than teaching you anything about language or math in general). When the new test changes, there will not be as many relevant study aids available. Finally, everybody on this forum and everybody I've spoken to has bemoaned the fact that ETS is changing the test because "I would do so much better with the new format!" None of them knows this, and it's probably not true for many people. It's likely to change in new and unexpected ways that will make it JUST as unfair and idiotic as it is now. I bet you $10 that after the format changes, there will be an equal number of people on this forum complaining about how awful the GRE is. Even if the test does become easier, the curve will just change and just as many people will end up with low percentiles and curved scores. Long story short: take is as early as you can. It will save you SO much anxiety.

Yes and yes.

Aha! My reading comprehension skills = bad.

Um, just curious, but why the "ha" for Tech?

Yes. The GRE is one vestige of a racist and classist system. Though it may not be explicitly designed to maintain an elitest status quo by keeping the "unwashed masses" out of the ivory tower, it still accomplishes that function. The exorbitant price of the test, coupled with the fact that it tests one's ability to take the *test* rather than one's actual intellectual abilities mean that what it is really testing is an applicant's access to test prep materials (financially, socially, culturally) and the test prep system (again, financially, socially, culturally, and yes, politically). Is this an extreme interpretation? Yes. Do I feel this way out of bitterness? No--I did very well on the thing (largely because I have the privilege of access to the system). I will also say that I am not a big fan of standardized testing in general, but I think there can be far more equitable ways to execute it--ways that do not prop up what is still, despite notable exceptions, a racist and classist system. The key word here: privilege.

As someone who recently returned to the US, I can assure you that this feeling will subside after a while. When you first get back, it's totally AWESOME that you just...know how to do things and know how stuff works. But pretty soon you get back into the zone where you want to be in certain places and not others. So I think location is still important to keep in mind, even when returning from significant time abroad. To Jacib: YES! All I wanted foreverrrr was good Mexican food.

Ha, well, who knows? Maybe you are just the application whisperer and the rest of us missing the point. Wouldn't that be something? You do sound like you have your shit figured out. I admire that. It's also worth noting that I'm clearly an insane person.

That's really nice for you, and I'm jealous. But do not think for a minute that if your applications are simple, all grad applications must be, and that the rest of us are just overthinking it and need to "chill" (jesus, how many heads did you explode with THAT little piece of advice??). I'm assuming that if your applications were so easy peasy and only took "maybe 15 minutes to an hour," it's largely a numbers game for you. How grand. It's not for me, or for most of the people on this forum. As the get ether of the interwebs keeps telling us, in humanities/social sciences graduate programs, bad numbers will keep you out but good numbers will NOT get you in. The statement of purpose, the writing sample, etc. do that for you. So, what did that mean for me? A solid six hours, minimum, per day, every day (with I think seven days off--total--all of which were spent at intensive dance workshops) from the first week of August to the last week of November working on these apps. Hunting down facsimiles of manuscripts to compare various editions of sonnet sequences to original manuscripts in order to double-check my three-year-old research; resurrecting said old research to find that I needed to overhaul my arguments completely in light of current scholarship. Seventeen drafts of my primary writing sample (at least twelve of them major rewrites), which had already been polished enough to submit as an honors thesis. Seven drafts, ALL major rewrites, of my secondary writing sample (required by only one program). Twenty drafts (at least fifteen major rewrites) of my statement of purpose BEFORE I started tailoring it individual schools. For each of the TWELVE schools to which I applied, at least five individualized drafts of the statement of purpose. Five drafts of a personal history statement, subsequently scrapped; seven drafts of a significantly different personal history statement (plus substantive changes to and several drafts for that statement for each individual school that required it). This is not counting the hours spent researching programs, contacting professors, researching and reading and annotating faculty members' scholarship. Not counting the work on my CV. Not counting the work on the actual applications (the easy, but goddamn annoying part). I've worked my ass off. And I have the advantage of badass numbers to back up that work. But you know what? I still might get rejected from all twelve programs to which I'm applying. Most of them average 1-3% acceptance rates in a good year (not this one). Your advice about keeping "destressing activities" in one's daily life is very good--and I did that. I kept going to dance classes, have been working on new and challenging choreographies; I got up and danced or played music when I became too frustrated with the application process. Made time to practice and train a shitload, and to drive six hours to attend workshops with a master teacher (my personal dance guru...), where I performed well enough to move up in her format. That was VERY cathartic. I watch a lot of Buffy and played with my cat. Listened to a lot of Prince. And I made a list, too, like you did! (Though it took longer than fifteen minutes to check something off of it.) All of that was helpful, but the application process still sucked out loud. If you applications were easy, bully for you. Mine were not. P.S. Sorry if I sound mean. I honestly do think it's amazing that you have managed to remain stress free while applying to grad school. But hearing yet another person implying, or seeming to imply, that this process should be easy and I'm just worrying my little head too much about it...it sort of...filled me with rage, momentarily. I'm better now! Venting is good. Let's be friends.

Gah! Yes.

Yes. Do it. I have several reasons why you should! 1. Opportunity for more research and/or more independent research 2. Opportunity for more rigorous study, which is neat 3. The opportunity to "test" if you can hack it doing intensive work in an English program (an undergrad honors program is going to be nowhere near as difficult or demanding as a PhD program, so if you're overwhelmed or hate doing your undergrad honors program, you might want to rethink grad school in English). This is why I applied for and entered my undergrad's honors program, and it was a very revelatory experience for me. 4. Getting a PhD is a labor of love. It's like being an artist, in that if you can imagine yourself doing anything else, do something else. Those of us who aspire to get PhDs are attempting to do so largely because we love intensive [insert subject] study--so why wouldn't you want to exploit of the opportunity to undertake as intensive a course of study as you can? I really hope this doesn't sound mean, because I'm just trying to be straight with you: if you're even questioning "whether or not it is worth putting in the extra effort to complete the schools [sic] honors program," I wonder if you reeeeally want to get a PhD in English. I'm assuming that this is an English honors program, and not a general ed one. However, I think these points still stand in either case. As for your concern about a lower GPA...well...work hard and do your best to keep your grades high. I know this sounds like a brush-off, but it's not intended to be. You're supposed to work harder in an honors program. Don't let it become an excuse. (Yikes, I sound like a parent. Blarg.)

I find all of the "What are my chances?" posts confounding. I just want to say, "Dude--almost all of us are applicants, too. How would we know what your chances are?" All we can do is virtually hold a poster's hand, say s/he is special when we've really got no idea, and speculate wildly. At the same time, I get it. Because we're all freaked out (see below). As far as the people with stellar grades: look, they get stressed, too. I know it sucks, because we're all comparing ourselves to one another. But everyone here has something or other to be justifiably anxious about, whether s/he had a 4.0 or a 2.0. I will say that we're all shooting in the dark, and it is nice to know that other people are obsessing as much (or more! ha!) than I am about this. Very few of my friends and none of my family members "get" what this process entails (my sister thinks that applying to PhD programs in English is no different--in any way at all--from applying to business school, and gets pissy when I tell her otherwise). So I appreciate being able to hang around this forum with all of my comrades-in-applications.

I would agree in almost any other context, but here I think it's okay. Feminist discussions, or discussions in feminist spaces, often center on what we might think of as a feminist "coming out"--a person's breakthrough moment when she first became exposed to feminism, realized her own feminist leanings, experienced the "aha" moment of her own feminism, etc. I will admit, however, that I stopped reading when I first saw the high school thing and only came back to the post later. So, perhaps it would behoove Gestapolollipop to frame the high school discussion in the context of this "feminist coming out" instead of just a high school anecdote.