Swagato

Here's hoping adcoms are aware of the difficult, even slightly deflated grading at Chicago...

Well, I guess slinging mud at walls hoping that something sticks is one approach, certainly... Out of curiosity, may I ask what your interests (which are evidently fairly interdisciplinary) are? We have a few things in common (Stanford MTL, Rochester Vis/Cult), but I'm firmly within film and visual studies.

If Natalie Portman could do it, I'm sure you won't face any issues. Just tell them the truth.

There's your backup plan, waparys. Set up your own program and offer stipends in the form of raucous debauchery.

All I'm reading here is wine, wine, wine. BUT WHY IS THE RUM ALL GONE?

In addition to what dazedandbemused said, you need simply consider this. 1) Application stage: Roughly 300 applicants, out of which roughly a dozen will be offered admission. At the top departments, the admit numbers are in the single digits. If you really imagine that you're going to successfully compete against someone with 4 years (plus an MA, or maybe not) at a top-tier department, with letters from major names, and all the benefits that dazedandbemused described, I wish you the best. I really do. 2) On the job market: A tenure-track job in Butt-hole, Nowhere, will receive 500+ applications on average. And postdocs/TTs at major departments are practically closed before they're announced, in many instances. If you really imagine you're going to successfully compete against someone with a PhD from a top-tier department, with networking and clout from major names, with letters from major names, and all the benefits that research and networking at such departments offer, I wish you the best. I really do. We're not saying a background at a top department is a magic gate-pass. But you're severely misguided if you think pedigree is not used as a cut-off in many, many senses.

I definitely agree that paying for "a graduate degree" in the humanities is a big risk and not one that should be taken simply because there's an attractive brand name behind it. But, again, I have to disagree (and this is more than likely due to my experience at MAPH). Does it provide cash for the university? Well, yes. But I'm not sure I agree that it was designed as a cash cow. When I was at MAPH, I encountered a level of support from its administrative staff, and the University's faculty and career services staff that made it very clear that this is something everyone takes seriously and in good intent. I don't recall ever hearing people sugarcoat the reality of the academic market. If anything, MAPH emphasises the urgency of preparing for non-academic options (whether as a safety plan or as a wholly alternative career track). It offered opportunities to network with recruiters from dream firms across industries. The MAPH internships are a fantastic way forward after your 'useless' humanities MA degree. Plus there are the MAPH mentorships which you can be hired into after completion. But, honestly, listing the possibilities is not my intent. I can't speak for other programs elsewhere, but while I certainly won't deny the financial benefit to the University from MAPH, I'll stand by my position that it was not designed solely to exploit witless students into paying for a "Chicago degree." I'd really urge everyone to read http://tableau.uchicago.edu/articles/2012/10/bringing-humanities-world Don't dismiss it just because it is written by a former MAPH program mentor. Instead, evaluate what he writes on its own terms. Then decide whether Chicago's initiative is really so unethical or not. I'll conclude by saying that one should be extremely careful when deciding whether to pursue such options at not, regardless of Chicago or Columbia. I was able, with a fair bit of trouble, to finance myself. I chose to do it because without it, I really had negligible chances of breaking into a top-tier PhD program, and that meant my academic ambitions would basically need to be ditched. I'm glad I did it, whether or not I find success in academia. At the same time, it should be underscored that people should not risk such things unless they really know what they're doing and understand how to make the best of such programs and the leverage they (can) offer.

I really have to object to including Chicago's MAPH program in this sort of category. My past posts provide more detailed accounts, but the capsule version of it is that Chicago's MAPH is definitely not a cash cow. It has jumpstarted the PhD career of many, many people across the humanities. The thing about MAPH is that it targets two broad types of students: those who already know the ins and outs of graduate application and can make MAPH work for them (and, a sub-type, those who do not already know this BUT can develop these skills during the MAPH year), and those who want to dabble in graduate work but are quite unsure of whether they really want to continue. Those who can make use of MAPH not only get to develop a fantastic writing sample and win recommendations from major scholars, in addition to an immersive experience within graduate work at the top levels. Others may find that graduate work is not for them and thus utilise their MAPH training toward more alt-academic or even non-academic ends. I've had friends find excellent positions in nationally-renowned museums and galleries, while others have gone on to academic/administrative careers. Still others have landed PhD positions at places like Johns Hopkins, Chicago itself, Boston U., and various other highly competitive places. Rather than perpetuate the false notion of MAPH as a cash cow, it's high time people recognised what MAPH's vision is, and what it does. Also, it is not true that as a MAPH student one would not receive faculty attention, or be treated as some sort of second-class citizen. Once again, the onus is on you. Speaking for myself, I can say that I was astounded at the generosity I received from various professors across departments (coming from a modest SLAC, the culture of a major research university was indeed a daunting thing initially). But I also know students who were vague and purposeless in their approach, and were accordingly brushed off--albeit nicely. MAPH provides a platform, but it won't work magic. I realise this may come off as a cri de coeur, but I'm simply speaking based on my own experience and what I've known of others'. I may or may not ever end up in the kind of PhD program I've aimed for--I may simply not be that good. But I'm aware that without MAPH's role in developing myself intellectually, professionally, and personally, I would not even have come as close as I have.

I would guess it went out to all applicants. I find it surprising that they'd bother with this since it surely means an unnecessary amount of paperwork--would it not be the more usual practice to ask *admitted* students to fill out finaid applications? In any case, yes, I received this as well.

Woah, thanks! If you'll just PM me your emails, I will send the sample over. This generosity is what I like about GC.

PMs sent to both of you.

Having finished all my applications, I feel as though I've broken through a resistant veil and am now floating in zero gravity. Been reading Stanley Cavell's Little Did I Know: Excerpts from Memory (the man writes wonderfully...I've always loved reading his writing), but that just seems to have added on to the feeling of weightlessness. SO, would anyone like to casually read my writing sample and offer commentary? I'm a bit pleased with where it is (never a good sign), and I'd like to try and turn it into a conference paper, or even a publication (hah). At any rate, it'll pass my time and yours, nein? It isn't very English/Lit, though. Early visual culture/film studies/art history. But, since we're all in the humanities, I don't think any of you would be lost at sea.

Good to hear from you, edenetapres. We have four overlaps! What is your general background/set of interests, if you'd care to share? Feel free to PM if that's more comfortable for you.

^ Ha. However, I did notice an uptick in Google searches for my name last time around during admissions season.

Martha Nussbaum.

Going to enrich Harvard's coffers slightly today. Probably going to offer their adcom some cause for mirth, too.

That person seems interested in East Asian Languages/Literatures, going by their previous posts. Still, I would expect a large amount of work to be done in English even in that field.

Interfolio to the rescue, I think. Interfolio allows you to archive an LOR and keep it around (I don't believe it's ever removed unless you remove it). So you may consider asking all your writers to simply upload to Interfolio. When application time comes around, you can use a unique email link for each address that Interfolio generates, to populate the address fields in your online application systems. Read up about how Interfolio works and you'll understand. I would strongly recommend it.

Not with that grammar. I don't mean to be snarky, but, really, you'll have a very hard time being admitted anywhere with that standard of writing.

Thanks for the couple of responses! To clarify, I earned my MA back in '11 and this is my second round of PhD applications (after I didn't get in anywhere with the applications I made in the fall of '11). I don't know if that would make it count as two years or not. In any case, what I've done is completely reorient myself--sub-focus, major research questions, new writing sample, completely different SOP, and all that. I've been working on languages, but that is indicated on my CV, so I don't specifically mention it within the limited space of an SOP. All in all I've not had any faculty readers indicate that I'm missing desired things in my SOP, so we shall see how things go this round. I was just curious after reading so many conversations involving people stressing out over how to "defend" their gap, so to speak.

Hmm this is a bit of an off-topic question in this thread, but what do people who are re-applying after one year think about addressing (or not) the intervening period? I've received conflicting advice from faculty members. On the one hand, it has been suggested that a mere few months is really very little time for radical developments and, as such, it is not expected that the limited space of an SOP address the intervening period. Rather, let the revised SOP/application package itself show how you are approaching things differently the second time around (through, perhaps, a much-reworked project, writing sample, and so on). On the other hand, it has been suggested that one foreground work done in the intervening period, even if there is no publication/conference, in an attempt to distinguish one's new application. Obviously, any presentations/publications should be mentioned. But again, that is not always possible within the few months (basically, April-November or so) and--so I hear--it is not expected by adcoms. So what are the thoughts here regarding this issue?

I just wanted to update this: my professor did indeed come through. Perhaps I was the one impatient. Given the concentrated flurry of events over December (term ends, graduation, gradings, and the usual hierarchy of letter requests) I think it's actually quite impressive for someone of their status to come through with a letter in less than a month. Also, I have heard from nearly every kind of source (faculty, student, administrative) that even significant delays in one letter does not endanger your whole application. Think about it this way. If an adcom is even partially inclined to seriously consider you, and they are aware that a letter (it should be noted here that the name of the writer of the letter obviously influences such situations) is pending, then it is almost definite that they will not judge one way or the other until that last letter drops in. In my case, the greatest delay is a matter of 26 days. But those 26 days also cover the immediate rush of activity around the deadline (Dec. 1), end-of-term activities, and the holidays. Many if not most departments with Dec. 1 deadlines will likely not begin seriously considering things until after Jan. 1. Even faculty members like their winter holidays. Of course, this is assuming that you are at least past the first cut. And that you have at least some letters in. But given all that, I think we can afford to loosen up just a bit over letters. Hope this helps!

The frustrating part here is that my writer has a mere three uploads, not 7, not 15. They just need to actually get around to it. Sooooooon.

Oh dear. Bill Brown WJT Mitchell Mary Ann Doane Miriam Hansen (I purposely left out "canonical" names like Benjamin/Foucault/Deleuze because let's face it, we *all* rely on them anyway.)

Thanks for the responses. A few words of clarification. Since Dec. 3, I'm aware that things at the department have been very busy--convocation, finals, grading, etc. Technically, it's only been 3 weeks since we spoke. For a letter, especially from an extremely high-up faculty member in the field, that's barely any time. They have never indicated anything other than full support (and in fact has been instrumental in guiding/shaping my second round of applications this year), so to drop me now would be...very unlikely? So that's one thing. The other thing is that they are my primary recommender due to the close links between my application/work/PhD proposal and their own work. That makes it unfortunate that this letter is the missing one. I'm hearing from various faculty and student contacts that most departments won't really begin to go through files until after the holiday season, and that one missing letter won't wreck me. Of course, I'd like to get this in ASAP. My plan is to reach out to my recommender via phone just after Christmas. I'm a bit in two minds about contacting departments. On the one hand it won't really do much either way, but on the other, at least it'll make them aware that the fourth letter will, in fact, show up...eventually.