knp

Mentioning POIs in your statement of purpose is (like the lit GRE) one of those things that gets a lot of attention here in the fora because it offers the illusion of a degree of control that is obtainable if only you'll research enough, which is a predictably attractive thing for people with excellent research skills but who find themselves in a situation (graduate admissions in literary study) where they have almost precisely zero control, ceteris paribus, over the outcome of the process. It also often seems like the only way applicants have of addressing "fit" (it isn't), which can otherwise appear wholly inaccessible and mysterious -- in addition to being ultimately up to the school in question to determine (it is).
The fact of the matter is that you can get into programs of all kinds by mentioning professors you want to work with, but you can often get into those same programs without mentioning any professors at all. Yes, on the balance, it's usually a good idea to indicate who you would see yourself working with, and why -- but that's not a laundry list of people you might want to take classes with; to the extent that it signals anything institutionally, it's a list of potential dissertation supervisors. But at the same time, programs know that people change, and that for all intents and purposes (at least in the US) no one ends up actually pursuing the course of research outlined in the SOP, and there's no expectation that they do so -- people even change historical period, much more often methodological approach, and even more often the actual topic! There's no magic number above which you'll seem dilettantish and unfocused and under which you seem inflexible and not able to work with anyone else. It really boils down to: if you can make a solid, well-researched case for a substantive connection between a professor's work and your own, make it; if not, don't.
(But, real talk, more than three is probably excessive, and the norm is closer to two.)

My PI's lab is on Danforth campus so it seems like it would be about a 15 minute bike through Forest Park and worse comes to worse, I can take an uber since the apartment is only 8 min away (according to google maps)
 
I'm just going to go ahead and post this here. It's the map I send to first year/prospective students who are looking for housing near the med campus (so it's highly med-campus focused). Hopefully it will help some people. If anyone is more familiar with the Danforth side, please feel free to update/save/repost a version of the map with more details on that side of Forest Park: 
 
Here's the map I refer to in this e-mail (let me know if you have trouble viewing it): https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=znSq18U6Bxo4.ka_fNS8CoCMQ   Just to orient you on the map: The medical campus is the green square to the right of forest park (large green rectangle). I've also labeled metrolink stops with red markers. There's a blue marker that marks the 4444 building, which is where many of the genomics labs are located (though many of them will be moving to the main campus in the next year or two).    I'm sure you've heard quite a bit about the Central West End (purple and red on map) during the interview process. It's a great place and I highly recommend looking there for apartments. Some of the older buildings have extremely reasonable prices, while some of the newer ones can get pretty pricey. The Del Coronado is (in my mind) the gold standard of what you will find in the CWE. It's new, super close to campus and has a parking garage...but its prices reflect those benefits. I do, however, think it serves as a good comparator when looking at other buildings. If you have a car I highly recommend putting affordable, provided parking high on your list; parking in the CWE without an assigned space or garage can be a bit crazy.    I live in the Debaliviere (DEB) area, which is north of forest park (Blue on map). It's right next to the metro link and I metro to work most days. If you live in either the CWE or DEB, there is a shuttle that runs every 30 mins from campus from 5pm-midnight:30 (M-F) that will take you directly to your door on your way home. I love living where I do. It's not as frequently-travelled as the CWE, parking is easier and I feel very comfortable walking around at night. The CWE is generally safe but it has a lot more foot traffic coming through.    There's an area between the CWE and DEB that is highlighted on the map in pink. A good number of students live there but it's not immediately adjacent to any metrolink stop so transportation may be a bit more difficult, though there are some beautiful buildings in that area.    Another place you might want to look is The Grove (brown pentagon on the map). There is lots of affordable housing in The Grove and it's an area that is getting nicer over the years...but it's not a place I feel 100% comfortable walking on my own at night. I do, however, know a lot of people who live there and have never had any problems. There are several apartments outside of the pentagon that are perfectly safe/nice but I can comfortably vouch for the brown-covered area being filled with happy graduate students.    Also highlighted in green is St. Louis University (in orange). There are tons of apartments in that area, but again, you have the commuting issue that isn't a problem in DEB or CWE. I also highlighted the Tower Grove area (in black) at the bottom right. This tends to be a place students move to in their second or third years. I wouldn't recommend it during your first year.   In yellow is the undergraduate (Danforth) campus and the Delmar Loop area. There are labs that some students may want to join on the Danforth campus and the Delmar loop is a great place to live. Unfortunately, I don't know much about the area. I recommend living close to the medical campus (green) for your first year at least since so many of your classes/journal clubs will be there.

It's important to note, though, that the more queer-friendly the program, often the less emphasis is placed on sexual identity as a marker of diversity. At Berkeley, for example, so much of the graduate student population (and faculty) is LGBTQ+ that it becomes the sort of thing that doesn't really answer the personal statement's prompt about working with/contributing to the education of students from diverse backgrounds. I know Berkeley profs who've suggested that applicants not use their sexual identity as their lens for the statement, in fact, because it's really just not a thing here.

Sounds fairly typical. I think it's stupid and useless, but it's still typical.

I'm not sure if it's that clear-cut. Columbia's endowment is large, but spending at the university has been/is somewhat controversial. They've come under fire for throwing money at massive building projects, while tenure-track positions in the Humanities haven't been filled, or have been replaced by sessionals. Likewise, there's a lot of money going towards the business and law schools, while the Core Curriculum is being comparatively underfunded. I guess it suffices to say that there's really a stranger political landscape beneath the overall wealth of the school. 

I think it's also worth pointing out that Columbia is one of the few schools of its calibre to offer standalone, unfunded MA programs in a number of Humanities disciplines, like English and Art History. Ironically, the other school that comes to mind here is Chicago, whose MAPH program is probably the best comparison. In both cases—and I've heard this from students in the PhD programs—the MA students are seen as subsidizing PhD candidate funding. Moreover, rejected PhD applicants are often funnelled into the MA programs. As cynical as it seems I don't think it's out of line to believe that Columbia and Chicago are fairly intent on maximizing the number of applicants to their PhD programs, so as to likewise maximize the $$$ coming in from their masters programs. 

Really sorry to hear this, OP. I can imagine how devastating it would be to hear something like that coming from your advisor. We all struggle with imposter syndrome and comments like that can really kick it into overdrive, I know. But since other professors in your program affirm your work, I suspect that your advisor may be over reacting here. My suggestion would be to sit down with one or two other professors that do like your work and ask them for candid opinions of how you're doing academically and if they seem affirming, then come up with a plan to switch advisors. Not ideal, I know, but in the end, I think it's worth it to work with someone who works well with you. 

I'm popping in from the political science board to say that I think unræd is right - don't worry about the e-mail, they're just trying to make sure they get your app fee. I'm applying to Columbia this cycle, and I got the same e-mail, so it's certainly not related to any particular admissions committee. Still, you would think that schools would know better than to send this kind of stuff to hyper-stressed applicants during finals/app crunch time.

I respectfully disagree. He has explicitly said he doesn't want the OP as a PhD student; a PhD is a long process with its inherent ups and down even on the best of terms, and starting out with someone who's already said he doesn't think you're good enough can't lead to anything good.
OP -- it sounds like the best course of action if you want to stay in your program might be to switch to working with New-Professor. Trust NP to know who he wants in his lab, and don't worry about not being able to give anything in return. You'll learn what you need to learn and start producing work soon enough. If NP is good with that, you should be, too. If you have compatible work styles and you have his support, I think that's a much better solution than begging someone who's said they don't want to be your advisor anymore to stay on. The MS option sounds unappealing, so staying in the PhD program some other way seems like the way to go. If you can't stay in your program, maybe transferring (often, reapplying from scratch) is the only way to go. Law school is obviously another option, but that's quite a leap from where you are now. Maybe you should look at more local solutions first. 

You'll have other letters supporting aspects of your application that he might not? He knows you and agrees to write you a strong letter, and his name carries weight? Seems like an obvious person to ask for a letter from. I know that the culture in Europe is different than in the States with regard to how effusive the letter is, but that's a well-known fact that the adcom will know as well. I can't imagine that this uber-famous professor has never placed other students in US programs -- meaning that he's written letters of recommendation that at the very least didn't impede people's chances, and in all likelihood did more than that. Which is to say, I doubt that he's unaware of how important letters are. LORs are ubiquitous in all stages of an academic's career -- for grad school, postdocs, jobs, grants, fellowships, tenure, promotion to full prof -- and I assure you that he's written hundreds of them. Just ask him like you would anyone else ('would you be able to write a strong letter in support of my application?'), and don't worry about things you can't control. 

I mean, I would support you if you decide to chuck it all and choose neither. (Japan does fund such nice teaching-abroad options.) Even without the cushy English-teaching job, I Was Not Ready For Graduate School until this cycle—I ended up taking three years off to make sure I was absolutely certain I was ready. If I'd applied during my senior year and gotten into a program I wasn't thrilled about (possible), that would have been a horrible and wrenching dilemma. I don't know what I would have done. So I'm sympathetic: many people, like me, aren't ready to make such a long commitment without a bit of a break in between to think about it. The UCLA offer is fantastic and probably won't come around again...but if you're not ready, you're not ready. So finding something else to do should be on the table! That said, given the information and options we know about, there is no question to which "take an unfunded MA degree at Harvard" is the correct answer.
Have you gotten your official rejection from the Harvard PhD yet? You might try reaching out to that professor you like, although I'd be careful with your wording and approach, because I bet that he'd actually encourage you to take the UCLA PhD offer, too.

I saw a thread somewhere about this. A short answer is no, don't risk it, keep it professional.

I wouldn't say that UChicago is any more focused on European literature than some of the other programs on your list. As far as I know they have faculty working in Chinese, Tamil, Azerbaijani, Arabic, Japanese, etc. Mostly I mention the program because Chicago is pretty stellar for Queer & Feminist Theory (they have a Grad Certificate in Gender and Sexuality), and they also have really top-notch faculty in East Asian & Middle-Eastern Studies. 

On that note—it's hard to say! Things change considerably based on the diaspora(s)/diasporic communities in question. A school that is stellar in the area of African/Afro-Caribbean diasporas might not be great in the area of East Asian or Middle Eastern diasporas, and vis versa. It really depends on the work you see yourself doing, which will be considerably more specific than the fairly generic category "diasporic literature."

Just remove your personal experiences from SOP and utilize that for your personal history statement. Expand more on your academic experiences. There should be somewhat a clear distinction between both statements.
+1 to Yanaka's post.

Agreed with the above. In addition, I'd recommend taking upper-level history and area studies classes in your area of interest because it's in those classes where you'll develop a deeper understanding of the historiography and have a chance to engage with the relevant scholarship. If your department offers undergrad courses on historiography and/or research methods in history, you'll definitely want to take those (ideally in your junior year). Since you're an undergraduate, I'd recommend looking at classes in disciplines besides history which also discuss the ancient Mediterranean, which could mean classes in religion, Jewish studies, archaeology, or literature. Having a more well-rounded base of knowledge about the region and time period you're interested in will help you develop research questions and refine your interests.
Finally, I'd just say that it's not unexpected that you don't know what research questions to ask since you're basically in your third semester of college right now. You have lots of time to read and learn before you'll even consider applying to grad school so take advantage of that! You may also want to study abroad in the Mediterranean so you get the chance to work with other scholars interested in the same area and potentially have access to see original documents.

Oh, sweetie! No, you're totally right: you need to be doing the opposite of this. You don't have a whole lot of time and space to experiment, I realize, but can you try reverse outlining your chapters? Write summaries in your own words—I am comfortable enough with my material to allow some quotation, but for really difficult readings, I only let myself paraphrase. There's lots of other tips and tricks you can try, but you want to force that extra step of comprehension, not just remembering. Is there a study skills center you can go to through your university?
That sounds about like my attention span, so don't worry about it. If at all possible, try to make those breaks good breaks, though. Go divert your attention into something else—look out the window, do some stretches, make yourself a copy and try to think about other things—for ten or fifteen minutes, so that you can come back a little refreshed. (Getting exhausted and then clicking around the internet for twenty minutes as a 'break' will do much less for your renewed attention span.)
I'm sure other posters will have more thorough advice, but you can do this!

Most campuses have some kind of student resource center that hosts workshops on effective study tips, speed reading, note taking, etc so look into that.  Also check in the library because sometimes they host these types of workshops or can direct you to books, videos, or websites that can assist you.  I have not heard of many campuses offering any kind of tutoring services for graduate students (because apparently our professors are supposed to be helpful and I find that is rarely the case) but it wouldn't hurt to inquire about that as well.  
What I have learned is that there isn't one way to study and many people need to change the method of study depending on the material.  For some classes group study might be more effective than independent study or using flashcards might be more helpful than re-reading the textbook.  Some people are visual learners, some learn by doing things, etc.  It really is just trial and error.
And I know this is easier said than done, but stop comparing yourself to everyone else.  There is nothing wrong with you not having had a psych related job already and there is nothing wrong with you being younger than some of your classmates.  You have a different background and your own interests therefore your path through grad school and a career is going to be unique.  It is also perfectly fine to seek friends outside of your program or even completely off campus if that is where you find you fit in.  
Another key thing to understand in grad school (in addition to the fact that extra credit is nonexistent) is that you cannot possibly do everything.  It is not possible to read every word of every assigned reading, attend every talk/symposium/seminar, research every question that interests you, and submit a poster/paper to every conference.  The sooner you figure out where it is best for you to devote your attention and what you can put less energy into the better off you will be.  You'll never complete everything on your desk in the amount of time you have so go to bed when you're tired, eat when you're hungry, and exercise or go do something fun when you can't learn anymore.  There is always something else to read, study, learn, or attend but breaks and self care prevent burn out.

Yeah, it's unfortunate that more programs don't post these stats, but the stats alone aren't going to be enough, even if they were posted. You'd want to know why people left -- were they struggling financially? did they discover that they hate teaching and don't enjoy research enough? were they not doing good work and asked to leave? did they get another job? did their interests change and therefore they decided to reapply to another school that is a better fit? Some of those replies would be a lot more worrisome than others. Also, again, it's very important to know if the people who are there are happy and whether they are successful once they graduate, whatever that means for them (job in academia, job in industry, lateral move to administration, think tank, non-profit, etc.). These are all things that it'd be difficult for you to learn about as an applicant, unfortunately. Speaking for myself, I would not be nearly as forthcoming with a random student who hasn't even applied yet than with one of the small number of admitted applicants who could very well become a student at my institution next year. More generally, you just wouldn't know who to ask, at this point. 
This may mean that your best bet at the moment is simply to apply to programs based on fit, location, funding, and whatever other important considerations you have, and then you'll have to ask these extra questions once you have your decisions back. At that point, students and faculty will reach out to you to recruit you, and you may have a chance to visit the school in person. It's more obvious to know how you'd ask about completion rates and placement; for happiness, you might ask (faculty and students!) if students seem to work in their offices or in common spaces, or if they tend to work from home or the library; if students show up for talks and reading groups on a regular basis; if things tend to be organized by students or faculty (active student participation and involvement = they care more, which would generally be a positive); if there are any regular social events that students and/or faculty participate in; if students tend to be roommates with each others; and if they collaborate with each other and with faculty. Students tend to be very forthcoming, especially if you ask the right questions.

Yes, my reaction was quite similar to @knp's. The OP's metrics are stunningly good, and when I first read this thread, I was honestly wondering for a second if it was a vanity post, since those GRE scores are quite literally the best they can be. I know it's not, but there is certainly nothing wrong with a 3.71 undergraduate GPA and a 3.85 MA GPA. Even if the former is slightly below typical, the latter is strong enough to make up for it. I don't think there needs to be an explanation sheet. In fact, an explanation sheet might suggest a lack of confidence (I could be wrong about this).

Ultimately, your astronomical GRE scores will weigh in your favor, your GPA will probably not affect things either way, and your WS and SoP and "fit" with each program will most likely be the more determining factors. You really have to put yourself in the mind of an adcomm though. I know I made a long "roleplay" post about that a couple of years ago, but the gist is that you can imagine polite deliberation over various aspects of your application.
In other words, so long as your writing sample and statement of purpose are sound, and so long as there's a place for you in the program, your GPA isn't going to hurt you, and your GRE scores might help you a bit.

I can't tell the roots of my incomprehension here—and I could come up with a lot of hypotheses—but, what? The level at which posters here want to attach explanations for doing poorly (and I don't mean to pick on you, this is a pattern beyond this thread) is way higher than makes sense to me. For many reasons, my calibration on this metric could be way off. But I'm an anthropology PhD who did quite well in my admissions cycle, and the only comments I received on my ~3.75 undergraduate GPA after admission—and my 'major GPA' and my 'final two years' GPA' were both lower than that!—were two tangential remarks that my grades were "really good!" So, for a single B among a sea of As, are you sure you need to attach this extra explanation at all? Maybe it's different in English, but I don't think the difference between "a lot of As" and "all As" will actually make any difference to how anyone reads your application.
Some assumptions I applied under were: 1) professors at PhD-granting institutions are viewing applicants as future researchers. 2) To gauge applicants' research projects, SOP and WS become the heart of the application. 3a) Maintaining a 4.0 doesn't actually correlate that well with research ability, so 3b) professors look for academic records that demonstrate that you will do well enough not to have problems getting through coursework, but that 4) its irrelevance to your work as a scholar means that as long as your previous GPA(s) is good enough, you won't see added admissions benefit from slightly higher numbers there. You could contest any of these assumptions, I'm sure, and although I had a second major in English I never looked into graduate school in the field, so maybe it's different here. But if my premises apply, I would not submit an extra statement to any school about the grades you've listed above: your reasons for having the dip are very valid and real, and I'm sure it's frustrating to know that you could have done better at another time. Since one B in a slightly peripheral class is completely respectable, however, even if the only reason you got it was that you didn't get along with the professor, I would worry that attaching any explanation would make it seem like you think the point of graduate school is coursework, rather than research, therefore doing more damage to your chances of admission than you get benefits in return. You really do want to make sure they're envisioning you as a researcher, not a coursework-years student.

I can't tell the roots of my incomprehension here—and I could come up with a lot of hypotheses—but, what? The level at which posters here want to attach explanations for doing poorly (and I don't mean to pick on you, this is a pattern beyond this thread) is way higher than makes sense to me. For many reasons, my calibration on this metric could be way off. But I'm an anthropology PhD who did quite well in my admissions cycle, and the only comments I received on my ~3.75 undergraduate GPA after admission—and my 'major GPA' and my 'final two years' GPA' were both lower than that!—were two tangential remarks that my grades were "really good!" So, for a single B among a sea of As, are you sure you need to attach this extra explanation at all? Maybe it's different in English, but I don't think the difference between "a lot of As" and "all As" will actually make any difference to how anyone reads your application.
Some assumptions I applied under were: 1) professors at PhD-granting institutions are viewing applicants as future researchers. 2) To gauge applicants' research projects, SOP and WS become the heart of the application. 3a) Maintaining a 4.0 doesn't actually correlate that well with research ability, so 3b) professors look for academic records that demonstrate that you will do well enough not to have problems getting through coursework, but that 4) its irrelevance to your work as a scholar means that as long as your previous GPA(s) is good enough, you won't see added admissions benefit from slightly higher numbers there. You could contest any of these assumptions, I'm sure, and although I had a second major in English I never looked into graduate school in the field, so maybe it's different here. But if my premises apply, I would not submit an extra statement to any school about the grades you've listed above: your reasons for having the dip are very valid and real, and I'm sure it's frustrating to know that you could have done better at another time. Since one B in a slightly peripheral class is completely respectable, however, even if the only reason you got it was that you didn't get along with the professor, I would worry that attaching any explanation would make it seem like you think the point of graduate school is coursework, rather than research, therefore doing more damage to your chances of admission than you get benefits in return. You really do want to make sure they're envisioning you as a researcher, not a coursework-years student.

Please talk to the ombudsperson before you do anything else. What you should really be concerned about is not so much this one grade and more so your reputation within your program and your relationships with your professors. It's very easy to say or do the wrong thing, and you are obviously upset and worrying a lot, so don't do something now that you will regret later. Even though you were exonerated, the professor who made the allegation may still believe it has merit and may still be upset. You want to get to the point where you agree to have a truce, even if you never speak to each other again, because you stand to lose a whole lot more than s/he does. Be slow and smart about how you go about getting the grade you deserve without creating more tension than necessary. You may be entirely in the right and the professor entirely in the wrong, but s/he still has the power to hurt you by talking about this to other professors in a way that's not how you would like. (Note again: I am not talking at all about blame and who is right, just about what is smart to do.) So, get an outside opinion about the best next moves from someone who actually knows the school and the procedures. If the paper was ruled to be original work and the allegation was that it was too good to be yours, it doesn't make sense that it got an F. You want to bring that up with the ombudsperson, and at the same time talk about how best to mend the relationship with the professor, or at least part on decent terms. Please take care of both; I understand that you worry more about the grade, but in the bigger picture it's the relationship that matters more. 

Not forced or irrelevant. Go for it.

@eternallyephemeral Just FYI, most people in PhD programs in cultural studies—history, art history, regional studies, anthropology, sometimes poli sci, English literature of the non-US, etc.—will end up spending a lot of time in the region they study by the time they graduate. This does produce a classist effect for anyone lower class who wants to study a region to which they a) don't have family, regional, or cultural ties, b ) have no work experience in and c) go to unsupportive PhD programs that only provide support for a few months' of work abroad, you're right. There may be ways to ameliorate that further, but because you can't be an armchair researcher of other cultures any more (i.e. studying it without leaving your metaphorical house), somewhere between most and all cultural studies PhD programs support their students getting significant experience in whatever region they're studying. You're right that you do, in almost all cases, need experience working in that region to get an academic job...but it needs to be professional experience, which most PhD programs should be designed to give you. Personal experience often helps, but you can also acquire personal experience with a culture even if you start doing so past age 18.

@eternallyephemeral Just FYI, most people in PhD programs in cultural studies—history, art history, regional studies, anthropology, sometimes poli sci, English literature of the non-US, etc.—will end up spending a lot of time in the region they study by the time they graduate. This does produce a classist effect for anyone lower class who wants to study a region to which they a) don't have family, regional, or cultural ties, b ) have no work experience in and c) go to unsupportive PhD programs that only provide support for a few months' of work abroad, you're right. There may be ways to ameliorate that further, but because you can't be an armchair researcher of other cultures any more (i.e. studying it without leaving your metaphorical house), somewhere between most and all cultural studies PhD programs support their students getting significant experience in whatever region they're studying. You're right that you do, in almost all cases, need experience working in that region to get an academic job...but it needs to be professional experience, which most PhD programs should be designed to give you. Personal experience often helps, but you can also acquire personal experience with a culture even if you start doing so past age 18.

I come from a country where this level of political violence (associated with race, class, religion, etc) has been common. I grew up with the us/we divide and I know people who have voted the most demagogic candidate out of fear of the other one. That said, I have my concerns about the future of the US -which I won't expose here- but I think it is of utter importance for us not to reproduce that fear. It is hard, because we live in a time where fear feeds from social media and becomes terror. 
I attend a school in the south. I am not there right now, but I cannot begin to describe my surprise of the results. Although Clinton won in urban counties, like the one where my school is located, it makes me wonder about other counties with small colleges. Students from around the area where I live come to our campus and use the library (I work there, so I know). Your response made me think about me being in the job market in a year. Will I want to apply to certain areas in the country? Will I stand a chance, being an international applicant? Will I find a place where I can discuss my ideas fairly without fear of harassment or counteraction?
I've asked these questions in the past, when I applied for jobs in my home country. I did not apply to several jobs in places where I knew it was going to be rather impossible to work because of my political views or my religion. Let me clarify that because of my background and because of the job market I was in a rare position where I could choose where to apply. This is not the case in the academic job market, and  I aware of that. I think the concern you are showing is very valid and I wish it could have an easy solution. It doesn't. What I would suggest is that you assess the reality of the places where you are applying to the best of your knowledge. Do not depend too much on mass media, but diversify your sources of information. Maybe you can contact alumni, folks that live in the area, etc.
From where I stand right now (physically, away; professionally, almost there), I will not yield to fear. Fear paralyzes us and drives us to make poor decisions. It blurs our thoughts, it shakes our believes, it whispers impossible scenarios very real to us. I'm not saying you shouldn't be scared, because there are very real threats. We cannot control feeling scared, but we can control what we do with it. Our situations are all very different, and I dare to say that I have it relatively 'easy'. It's up to us to rationally assess what is best for each of us, to act accordingly, and to stand by ourselves and our believes. And I'd suppose we don't by fear.
I wish I have more comforting words and I could do more. I feel so powerless right now. I'm sorry.