Swagato

Tiptoed here to see what it's like. You fortunate sods with your three courses ¬_¬ (Four courses/semester x 2 years for me.)

No problems, I filled it in again.

^ Forgive me for losing track, but your signature indicates one acceptance; why are you talking of ending up empty-handed this round?

Well, I honestly don't know much about what I'm about to say, so I'd invite corrections rather than people pouncing on me...but here goes. Is http://oldsite.english.ucsb.edu/undergrad/aftermajor/gradrankings.asp a valid starting point? It's from 2001. Anyway, I'll assume not much has changed since then. Buffalo isn't exactly among the tippy-top programs, though they are ranked nicely for Lit Crit/Theory. Should we expect a stellar placement rate to TT positions? I mean, programs like those at Chicago, Johns Hopkins (and I'm sure you English folk can insert a slew of other names) have continued to gather strength over the intervening years. As best as I know, placement from such places continues to be pretty damn impressive. And we all know department/institution/advisor--these things carry weight. So what's the consensus? "For the level of program Buffalo's is...." is 52% good, unexpectedly high, or unexpectedly low?

I don't think so, at all.

And this is exactly why I'm admittedly prejudiced against state institutions. Funding can be dangerously precarious. As a student, that's the sort of nightmare one doesn't need, considering what we have to deal with in the normal course of a PhD. Guy, you are probably the person on this forum everyone is pulling for. I really, really hope you make it! Is there any word? Did you get positive vibes during your visit? Are you in touch with your DGS? I just got an email from Pitt yesterday that makes me think they'll make me an offer. I will, of course, not hog the position needlessly, but it reminded me of your situation.

I worked in corporate PR for a while, so the kind of language you quoted is familiar to me. It isn't shady; they are clear about the fact that the automatic renewal is entirely dependent on whether funding is available or not.

Huh, intriguing. Any examples?

Went into J. Press. Sticker shock. Not unexpected, since I do value well-made clothing and spend comparable amounts on clothing I buy, but okay. Will definitely be investing in it over the years. Loved a scarf I saw.

Re: the above. Paragraph 2: Ramble about IPS display, despite the fact that for most users, the MB Air's 13" 1440x900 hi-res display (which is actually better than the MB Pro's since it is the same resolution on a physically smaller screen) is simply stunning. IPS is definitely not a concern for the vast majority of users. Consider, on the other hand: The shockingly lighter weight, which is vastly preferable to any MB Pro (I moved from a Pro to the Air). The aesthetics of the Air, likewise, are considerably more pleasing than the Pro's. It just feels a damned lot sleeker and sturdier. The Air is powerful enough (depending on what configuration you get) to run just about anything you throw at it. The safety of an SSD is a major bonus. The screen size is definitely not a concern. I moved from an old Macbook (white) to the MB Pro and now to the Air; given my field, I value a good display performance. The Air easily wins. In general, the Air is easily the better choice. I do not think one feature that most of us have no real necessity for is enough of a counterpoint.

^ I, too, would like to know where you were accepted. I'm particularly curious about whether you received a nod from Yale. I was told some very interesting things about my application during my visit, so I'm interested in whether a different department (at the same institution) may have expressed similar thoughts. Reveals a bit about institutional culture.

Quality of your work is undoubtedly a factor. Equally undoubtable is the fact that where you trained, who you worked with, and the names on your letters of recommendation all carry great, great value in the future (depending on your ambitions). Every half-decent job posting today receives 300+ applications. Any slight edge you can show, helps push you that much further ahead. #2 would, perhaps, allow you to develop your own niche at a stellar department that isn't necessarily known for that (this is where you get to adapt the expansive resources to further your ends). And given your specific future intent, #2 would appear to carry far more currency.

Honestly, I'd be very careful and scope the situation out with great care if I were you. Speak to current students, preferably advanced ones. A humanities PhD would require at least 4, usually 6 years. A funding situation that only just about covers the first year is a rather precarious one, IMO.

Interestingly, nobody I know of (off GradCafe).

Accepted Yale's offer.

DGS @ Pitt and my POI were both extremely understanding--they said one film admit has declined and one has deferred (?) so it's quite likely they will admit a film person if they do end up resorting to the waitlist. But, it's basically still a bit early (or was, when I had these exchanges about 2 weeks ago). I don't know...6 people turning down sounds like a lot. USC hasn't been in touch. I'll try shooting my POI there an email. I'm neutral either way, at this point. I love, love my POI at Pitt, but there are several amazing faculty members at Yale whose work relates to my interests very closely. And the program there is making a clear push into my areas. USC would be something to consider, but it'd have to be a damned good offer. Fit, again, is far better at Yale.

^ Yes, indeed. Even though I'm 99% sure of my choice, the fact that I remain on two waitlists makes me hesitate for no reason I can discern. It would have to be a phenomenally strong offer (off a waitlist, even) to change my mind.

I head to New Haven tomorrow, returning Friday evening. If all goes well, I shall make my post here then.

I recall that Chicago's MAPH offers some CC-college-specific career guidance and workshops in the Winter (or maybe it is Spring) quarter. In this case, however, Colorado is certainly the better option since it's cheaper.

Oh, don't get me wrong. Definitely it's not a case of "If I can't work with these people, I can't get anything done." Rather, it's more that getting to work with the very best you can is achieving at least a good payoff for all the $$ you'll toss at them. And I think we should be able to admit freely that yes, names do matter (institution, letter writer, etc.). Naturally, a lot depends on where one wants to go, what kind of job one wants, and a dozen other factors. I guess my whole perspective is that of someone who seeks a private R1 TT position. Pipe dream? Probably. But I must do my best to help that happen--and that definitely includes being able to work with/under major names, even if it means shelling out a hefty sum. As always, mileages will vary.

Yes, the investment in Chicago has worked well for me as well as for several of my friends. However, there is someone who went from Harvard to Chicago (same program as me) and is still floundering around. That's more because they don't seem to know what they want to do (film -> philosophy -> now considering law...). And there's another well-meaning film person who, as far as I know, has had another unsuccessful round. It really is no silver bullet. Please assess your individual situation. If you're going for an unfunded MA, the least you should do is ensure that you will get to work with field-leaders and a major, major institution. At least, that's my perspective. 90% of the reason I decided to go with Chicago was the faculty.

Ah shit. We're going to be butting heads over this. I'm a passionate critic of Tarantino and personally can't stand his work.

My personal observation has been that there is a definite trend toward admitting people with an MA over the past few years, in our field. Certainly, there are still admits straight from BA, but these tend to be either from places with really well-regarded film studies programs, or else the candidates are absolutely outstanding. I don't know if there's a wider shift toward preferring MA admits. It's possible that the increasing professionalization of academia in general, combined with financial pressures, concerns over time to degree, etc. are causing adcomms to prefer applicants who demonstrate a highly developed sense of what a PhD involves (that is, even more so than in years past).

And that's where the definition of "job" becomes, I think, a key issue.

Ah but the films of Miyazaki, Satoshi Kon, et al. have proved to be rich resources for stellar work on animation, movement, etc. However, here one would have to blend film studies with art history.