Swagato

Looking forward to meeting the new Yale History of Art admits! Congratulations.

Yale and Harvard usually announce close to each other; should be soon. Chicago has, I think, already notified acceptances.

I hope Harvard doesn't give up their tradition of sending out paper rejections. It's an oddly nice thing in an era of barely any material relations. And mass emails...don't know about that. I don't find anything off-putting about it, I guess. I was contacted by the DGSs, and then official notification arrived after a while asking me to find a formal letter within the online application.

Congratulations, it is a wonderful department. May I ask what your interests are? I was offered a place in Rochester's VCS program last year. It's a very interesting program that has a larger focus than many typical cinema and media studies programs. Some excellent names have come out of that program (Darby English, to mention a fairly recent graduate). My impression is there is a lot of respect for the program, though of course much depends on the individual's own work as always.

Lack of numerical specifics are exactly the problem, but also one that I don't believe can be adequately resolved because of how qualitative much of academe is. So, no, there are no exact and absolute rankings. What most of us are referring to is a mix of available rankings (USNWR, NRC) which have their own issues, and reputational rankings--much more ambivalent, and comprised largely of what we hear from the scholarly community. Anecdotal evidence obviously counts for little. However, it is at least beyond reasonable doubt that people from lower-ranked (read: perceived as having less power/influence on the job market) departments will probably have a slightly harder time pursuing TT positions. Applying statistics to these matters (IMO) is a mistaken approach simply because of the individual variations that are part of the process. *However*, we can certainly establish a general tendency, namely that department reputations matter. It's ironic that you mention Political Science, since Princeton (data available on their site) has an amazing grip on that job market. Likewise, UChicago has a terrific record for Cinema Studies (again, data available on their site). But these are the exceptions, places where a single department is so good that it is able to have an overpowering influence on the market. Of course, comparable departments also continue to place well--in Cinema Studies, for example, USC/NYU/Berkeley/Yale/Brown/etc. definitely have very good placement. As much as you may dislike the peculiar nature of the academic system, there won't be any sweeping changes underway. For us at this point, it's just relevant that we know what we're getting into. As far as reputation goes, yes, it clearly matters.

^ These are questions the answers to which are readily available. See, for methodology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Research_Council_rankings#Methodology for a simplified explanation. Obviously, the NRC rankings are more detailed and hence more "trustworthy" than those of the USNWR. With that said, such rankings are always best taken as a general guide rather than highly precise markers. There's little difference between #2 and #4, but a lot more between #4 and #40 (to state the obvious).

The general trend has always been that undergraduate institution used to matter tremendously, because you'd go on to a PhD directly from there. Over the past...10? 15? years this has gradually changed somewhat, as it is now increasingly common to earn an MA elsewhere before finally beginning the PhD. So, now, it works two ways (generally): 1) Top undergraduate, top MA, top PhD program; 2) Not-a-top-undergraduate, top MA, top PhD program. There are numerous examples of the latter among recent faculty at prestigious departments. In short, today where you do your MA is crucially important, if you're going to do it before applying to PhD programs. Certain people tend to cluster at top departments--Ivy or not--because those departments can offer greater resources, greater opportunities, greater visibility, etc.

There is, as you may already have guessed, no silver bullet. Although the things you mention are certainly important, none of them is a guarantee, nor is any mix of them any better guarantee. I experienced it both ways; I applied without an MA, and then I applied with an MA. The MA was from Chicago, which for my field was one of the top departments around. My own understanding was that undergraduate grades don't matter a great deal. I had an uncommonly lower undergraduate GPA, in fact. MA GPA matters more, but again, the entire "GPA question" is really not that critical. It's more or less assumed that your GPA has to be in a certain range if you're applying to, say, a "top" program. If it's lower than is common, you had better be able to compensate otherwise. GRE, likewise. I am not at all sure that great attention is given to the GRE. My own AW score was 4.5. Granted, I had a good Verbal score (I took the older GRE, and did not take any subject tests), but I presume other applicants also had similar scores. So, it's a bit like the GPA. A high score won't get you in, but a low score may raise eyebrows. Besides, who'd bother reading your GRE scores when there is a 20 page writing sample..? I had no publications or conferences, and I know many others who were in similar circumstances even though they too ended up in top programs (I mean English, Philosophy, Art History, and Cinema Studies). So, I'm not sure that this counts to any great extent. But I'm sure it may be noted as a positive--just don't put *too* much thought into it. So that leaves the statement of purpose, writing sample, and the letters of recommendation. It's my belief that these are the most important components, though I can't presume to rank them in any order. I think they might be equally important, with individual variations possible. Fit--meaning a fit between [your intellectual and scholarly background, your existing work, your anticipated work, your research interests, your approaches, your letters] and [their department strengths, emerging clusters of research, future directions, existing gaps in student specialties]--probably is one of the most important factors of all. Hopefully this helps a bit.

Since you're not obligated to respond right away, simply state that you are very grateful for the positive response, but that you would like to hear back from other places, etc. It's still relatively early in the process, and just about all departments will find it more than reasonable. Edit: And you can always initiate conversations with faculty members around that time, too.

It's probably better to wait until the admissions season winds down before soliciting feedback.

Honestly, this issue has been discussed extensively. The general consensus is that yes, rankings obviously do matter a lot. The problem is in the term "rankings" itself. The NRC data illustrate why. Programs that were ranked based on how scholars in the field perceived the programs tended to not rank in the same order when the same programs were listed based on whether they actually had the attributes in question. Long story short, the data showed a disconnect (at times) between *reputation* and what is in fact there (or not there). Reputation aside, attending a top department brings certain obvious advantages: access to a stronger network, more resources, more flexibility, access to field leaders, etc. Right now, for example, Yale is hosting an incredibly major symposium in Film and Media Studies that features top-flight scholars from 4-5 countries across Europe and the Americas. In some ways it's just easier to arrange such things at some places than it may be at others. Having prominent dissertation committee members and advisors can't hurt. On the other hand there may be some discrimination while on the job market because certain committees may assume (rightly or not) that as a graduate from a major research department, you are not likely to remain at a teaching-focused college and will take off at the first chance you get. And, it is sometimes not the case that "an Ivy" has the best department in a given field. It probably doesn't have a terrible one, but it's a mistake to correlate institutional reputation with departmental reputation. That pretty much covers all the bases. For the aspiring academic, in view of the academic job market, it simply makes all kinds of sense to choose the very highest-reputed department where you actually have a great fit. It's that balance that is so hard to find.

Nobody's ever suggested choosing an unfunded **PhD** program. Likewise, what I have repeatedly advocated (and what Bill H.) supports in their own post, is that we do not draw absolutes, eg., "Under no circumstances should one choose an unfunded MA program." Individual circumstances vary, and so do outcomes. It is a myth--a strong one--that all unfunded MA programs are a debt trap, and that is what I consistently object to. Where opinions differ is on what is a "crazy" or "insane" choice. What's insane to one is manageable for another. I simply care to note that not all such programs are ever absolute no-nos. They can, and have, boosted many an application--so why should we perpetuate the wrong idea that an unfunded MA is necessarily a bad idea?

I'll reiterate that publications really are not expected. Is it nice to show that you're familiar with publishing/conferencing? Yes, of course, but it likely doesn't matter much beyond just being noted. I didn't have any publications or conferences at the time of admissions, and many of my friends didn't either. It isn't something you should sweat over.

That's rather horrible. In that light I find the US PhD model much more sensible, where most programs only admit as many (as a maximum) as they are able to fully fund. Sometimes, even fewer are admitted in a given year.

We've had this conversation before, and you've made that point before. I'm interested in why you feel the way you do, actually. We'll assume that finances are not the point (obviously, if they are, then that's that). But I am curious as to why you seem to feel that a non-funded MA is an inevitably bad choice. Partly, it's because I benefited so much from MAPH (quite aside from it having been crucial to PhD admissions), but also because I've seen so many other successes both academic and non-academic that the program fostered.

Rejections have little to do with being "not good enough" even if, almost inevitably, they feel that way at first. A very important factor is whether you fit well with A) existing research clusters within the department (specialties/strengths), what they're hoping to add to the department with this year's group of admits, and C) how the department hopes to evolve. A poor fit with any of these, I would imagine, doesn't help a candidate even if they may otherwise be an absolutely magical future scholar. Hence why so many of us have experienced rejections from programs we expected to get into, and acceptances from programs we never thought we had a shot at.

Excuse me, New Haven here. We'll convert you. I know I converted from deep dish to New Haven-style! As for OP's question, it's pretty simple. Where did the people whose work I admire/love/am inspired by/find relevant do their own PhDs? Which current faculty members/departments emphasize the kind of research directions I would like to take up? How have recent graduates from these departments fared? What are some recent dissertations emerging from these departments like? Those were my primary questions. Everything else was secondary (such as department culture, flexibility, etc.). I honestly didn't even think about location (and had applied across the coasts from California to Connecticut).

Not a single contemporary..?

Thanks for posting what I would've posted in response to hashslinger, but (in turn) I must differ with you on the point quoted above. I, and many friends, earned our MAs at the University of Chicago's Master of Arts Program in the Humanities. You'll find that opinions are very mixed on this board as far as that program goes. There are good reasons, of course, but the biggest concerns are, precisely, that it is A) mostly unfunded, and a combined program. There are certain "tracks" within it, but it is designed to allow for interdisciplinary opportunities. However, I will also say that placement from there to top-tier PhD programs has also been very, very good (among those who pursued further graduate work). I know of strong placements in English, Philosophy, History of Art, and Film and Media Studies. I personally benefited, and was offered admission to two superb programs. So it isn't always the case that a combined program carries problematic associations.

Not in Philosophy, but I did receive multiple offers when I applied last year. There is no reason to accept, formally, any offer before May (15th, I believe, is the official deadline). You should certainly not hesitate to make clear that you are considering the offer, but there's no reason to commit until you have heard back from all your places. All departments should be quite reasonable about this.

1. The MA thesis can definitely be reworked into a writing sample. Some places (eg., the University of Chicago's MAPH) expressly design the MA thesis to be your shot at an awesome writing sample. Alternately, as you note, the MA offers an opportunity for further research at a higher level that can see a great seminar paper become your writing sample. I actually got to try both tactics; my first round of applications used my MA thesis as the writing sample, while my second round used a revised seminar paper. 2. It's impossible to say. Does it offer an opportunity, a leg up? Yes. Is it a guaranteed one? No.

^ Is this last one Rochester, by any chance? They're the only one I recall as having a deadline some time in the middle of January. Very interesting program.

Reapplying is no shame, especially in today's cut-throat times. If I counted *all* my applications, including the time I was accepted to and enrolled in my MA program, then I had three rounds too, with the last one finally favoring me. But I think that's the key lesson I learned: if you're going to reapply, make sure you're actually doing something over the intervening time. Whether that means completing an MA program, or drastically revising/overhauling your approach and work, the time has to be productively used so you can become a more compelling applicant.

Will be rooting for you all + checking in on this thread.

Bear in mind that there are many factors that play into admissions at high-prestige programs, and that you will not be able to control for many of these. Institutional background plays a role, pure merit is not all that matters, etc. There are apparent factors, and others less visible. Luck, of course, is also very much a factor. Most of the programs at the top level likely receive 500+ applications and admit a fraction of that. Here, for example, are Yale's stats from the 2012 entering class: http://www.yale.edu/graduateschool/academics/profiles2012/englishlanguageliterature.pdf . I understand Columbia explicitly states they receive around 700 applications. All of this is to say that while you're taking the right approach in targeting top-tier programs with a view to future academic employment, that can only help a little bit; it doesn't offer any guarantees. All other things being equal (which, of course, they are not), a good pedigree can only help. In today's market, even a little help can be a good thing. While it's a good thing you're applying top-heavy, do please remember the importance of fit. I think you need to seriously recalibrate your expectations of material returns in academic life. While, of course, salaries and benefits are competitive at the upper level of R1 universities and SLACs, there is *no* automatic relation between graduating from a top department and actually ending up at another top department as faculty. And definitely not in the early stage (i.e. anything below tenured status). You should be fully prepared for the possibility of adjuncting for a year, maybe more. And you should definitely be prepared to move wherever the job takes you.