Swagato

I've had excellent communications with my undergraduate and graduate writers, and have been in close contact with all of them via email and telephone. All my letters are in but one, but that's where things get odd. That letter is to be from the graduate professor whose work directly forms much of the foundation for my PhD interests/projected research directions/etc., and also informs my writing sample. Plus, they are hugely respected in the field for not only being a brilliant scholar but also an exceptionally nice person. All in all, their letter is basically crucial to a successful application. Happily, I had a very encouraging conversation with them just recently in early December, and then sent off my materials that same week. Since then, I've had my other graduate prof. send in their letter, as well as my two undergrad letters, but this oh-so-important letter has not yet arrived. Term has ended at my graduate department, and I've send ample reminders, and I firmly believe they will come through---I just don't know when! They're obviously aware of the deadlines, too. My deadlines break into three groups (Dec. 1, 15, and end of the year). I'm just concerned that the first group may be seriously affected due to this missing letter. What are my options? Email the department and mention what's going on? One explicitly acknowledges that letters get delayed, and so they'll give you up to early Jan (for an early Dec deadline!) for all letters to be in. I don't know if that's an unspoken convention at most departments or not. Thoughts?

I have heard mixed commentary on this issue and it definitely depends on the field and institution. Some specifically seem to prefer "pedigree" while others don't. A top-5 university (note: not necessarily department) in my field seems to be surprisingly open to admitting graduates with non-name-brand BA/MAs, while another top-10 university (and top-5 department) seems to prefer high-prestige BA/MAs. To be frank, I think the real difference comes down to who is writing your letters and what you can say for yourself. If you are coming from a "meh" place but have an amazingly well-articulated, timely, and interesting proposal and your academic chops back it up, then you should have quite a decent shot at glory. On the other hand it's probably a bit more likely that someone with a less impressive proposal and profile, but with excellent letters from big names and a high-prestige pedigree, will edge you out.

So, basically, I was able to quite drastically upgrade my writing sample a few days ago. That means roughly half of my 14-15 targets will receive the upgraded version, while the ones with deadlines between Dec. 1 and 15th are stuck with the older version. Both are definitely PhD-application-worthy, but I feel like the second one significantly outdoes the older version. Oh well. I was able to get two submitted applications updated with the new one, at least. Does anyone else feel like they need to constantly tinker with their piece, thus ending up making the last round of applications the most satisfactory?

Interfolio is actually pretty good. I'm applying to 14 places, I think. I'm having my letter writers submit individually for their own department and one other; everything else will be done via Interfolio. Ergo, they upload thrice, but I can make 14 applications without worries. Plus Interfolio is pretty good about getting things delivered.

^ This is helpful, yeah. One of my targets actually specifies that they'll give you two chances to get your letter in--one before/around the deadline, and one all the way in January when the committee reconvenes. I'm not sure if that is kind of an unspoken policy elsewhere, but I do know that it's rare for applications to be completely dismissed for want of rec letters. Anecdotally, I have heard that the applicant's pedigree (i.e. who's writing the letters) sometimes plays a role in making a decision on whether to wait for missing letters or to skip that file completely. As well, the applicant's general profile matters too. Which makes sense--I wouldn't want to hold on to a file if I'm not even interested in that person's project/writing sample/etc.

Well, between months and a few days there's a great gulf, ha. I am in a situation where one of my most important writers is well aware of deadlines, etc., but is a couple of weeks late (i.e. he is about a fortnight late for some Dec. 1 deadlines). My other letters are in; it's just this one. On the other hand, -everybody- in my field knows the person, and they are phenomenally well-liked. I am hoping that all this means they'll forgive the delay.

Quiet as the grave, still. How're we doing? Tonight was the deadline for several big programs.

Unfortunate as it is, we cannot help in this situation--unless, that is, we are to devote all our energies to instituting a sane society free of guns in civilian possession, and all that that entails. What we can do is to make our own lives mean something, and right now, that means concentrating on what we've set ourselves to do.

I'm just following the rhythm of my deadlines. I had my first group staggered between Dec. 1 and Dec. 10. Second group is all on Dec. 15th. Third group staggered between Dec. 30/31 and Jan 2. One outlier on Jan 15th. I'm trying to polish off everything by the 25th or thereabouts, so I can at least have my NYE in peace (as if). It is bloody scary knowing some of my dream places make their decisions as early as end-Jan/first week Feb. The idea that this stuff I've worked to come up with for almost a year is going to be judged within a few *weeks*...

Nobody is going to "predict" anybody's chances. At best, what people in our position may hope for is a reasonable comment as to whether we present a good fit for a particular department. And that's assuming the POI has taken enough interest in you to think about this.

Chicago Humanities deadline (excluding the exceptions that are noted on their page) is midnight of the 15th. Actually, last year I was able to submit it a few minutes -after- the deadline.

This topic took a really interesting turn. I did my MA at Chicago (MAPH program, Cinema Studies), but my interests have a lot of overlap with English. I cannot speak to the "atmosphere" in terms of internal competition or strife, but my experience across both departments left me frothing at the mouth to be a part of things there. I probably will not be accepted to the CMS department, but the sheer passion, engagement, opportunities, events, and the generosity of every professor I ever encountered--it was an extraordinary experience for someone coming from a modestly small liberal arts college. Recommendations, I think, matter -enormously-. I think they can definitely turn the tide in cases where there are questions. I will use my own example. Even in my modest SLAC, I had early pitfalls, and my transcript reflects that. None of my professors from there were/are recognisable names, at least at this level. However, I benefited greatly from the very, very close connections I'd created as I worked my way up through undergrad. I completely believe that the unusually close evaluation they were able to offer of me as a result was instrumental in a sub-3.0 PhD applicant with minimal background in the field getting waitlisted to one very selective MA program and one top-5 department (although redirected to the MA-level). Now here I am, a year out of MAPH. Last year I had a silly SOP, unfocused sample, etc. But I made sure to stay in close touch with the people who I knew my new project would involve closely. I feel, paradoxically, that this gap I've been forced to take has allowed me to develop a closer relationship with my Chicago profs and advisor than if I had gone straight on to the PhD. And this, I feel, has allowed them to observe whatever improvement/development I've (hopefully) shown in my work--and I think that could definitely reflect in the new letters they've provided me. It's such a vastly different feeling knowing that two seriously well-regarded scholars are backing you, from last year, when I had just emerged from an intense one-year program with overblown ambitions and vague claims.

This was relevant to me, as one POI basically guided the construction of my present SOP heavily and offered detailed critique, etc. Their program's awesome, and he is also a major reason why I'd love to be in their program. So, obviously, I emphasised my year-long correspondence with him alongside research fit, etc. I did not quote anything, just stressed how instrumental this relationship was to my desire to be there, etc.

Nah. They're a tenured Ivy League academic; you're just a lardass.

It's nice to feel the good spirits. I think we've all had those moments when we look around and see our competitors presenting left and right, talking about accepted publications, and we're wondering what on earth we're hoping for. Frankly, though, last year I ended up with one good waitlist and in retrospect, I had a -terrible- application. Rambling, unfocused SOP (2,000 word+ in all cases!), a mixed-bag writing sample that was all over the place...if indeed these two are the things adcoms weigh the most, then I'm at least certain I did a massive job upgrading both of them. After that--ball's in the other court!

Wow, this thread is certainly making me feel rather vapid. I guess the most important thing I did over this past year was to completely re-orient myself within my field, become very.clearly.aware of the current movements and trends, reimagine my project, and reach out to various faculty members and current students for feedback to develop what I believe is a very competitive SOP and writing sample. I was happiest when, very recently, speaking to one of the pre-eminent scholars in my specific area of interest, I received a very encouraging response. So, other than reading books and articles almost every day after it became clear that I wasn't going anywhere last spring, I've attended a couple of conferences (not as a presenter), and have shot off abstracts to a few conferences. Still awaiting decisions on one of them. And I've been working on my languages. Really, though, in comparison to some of the people here all this is mere fluff. @_@

Blargh. Well, I'm at 934 words and it's 2.75 pages double-spaced, so I'll see what can be done about it. I still feel like I should heed what my POI said--he's an extremely well-regarded figure at Pitt, so I do not believe he'd be offering bone-headed guidance.

bfat: see http://www.english.pitt.edu/graduate/apply.php under "Additional Materials." It's just a tad worrisome because it's been a devilish year learning about what makes stellar SOPs and I'd like to think I have a really succinct one right now--and that's exactly what makes mine quite a bit shorter than what Pitt apparently wants. Moreover, I'm torn between this website guidance and what the POI I've been in touch with specifically told me so many times.

bfat: Nice to see another Pitt applicant (I am gunning for Film). Do you find it odd that the English department explicitly suggests 2-3 pages, single-space, for the SOP? In my communication with a professor in the film program, who has been extremely generous with his thoughts and guidance, I was given to understand that they prefer things to be less than 1,000 words, and that's pushing it. What gives?

Hi jsross. That's a short list of targets; I hope you get into them! I opted not to apply to Duke, as the Program in Lit. doesn't really have much of a focus on 18th century visual culture (or media archaeology in general), and that is a crucial prong of my general interests. I did go for Modern Thought & Lit. at Stanford, though, as they have several people who would be perfect for me. I will be responding to the New School CFP, but haven't had time to get to it yet. You should certainly apply if you feel you have a good offering! However for this one in particular--because it is a graduate student conference--I would email and find out if submissions from independent scholars (which is what any of us not currently affiliated with a graduate program are) are permissible.

My final SOP for Berkeley (Film and Media) was 934 words. That's 2.75 pages, double-spaced, Garamond. I do not believe, based on feedback I've received from current Berkeley students as well as faculty members, that it is unreasonable. The advice everyone's talking about here is *general* *advice* -- and thus necessarily on the conservative side. Look at it this way. Would you want to read what you're asking them to read? Simple.

Because how you say something will matter as much as what you have to say--especially if you intend to publish in notable journals and interact with notable people.

Academia is quite likely among the most politically charged of industries. Things are made worse by academic doublespeak (see: every LoR ever), and the cloak-and-dagger games that go on in various departments. Fairness has little to do with it. For every Greenblatt, Hansen (Miriam or Mark), there are undoubtedly dozens of people who have produced 'radical' scholarship, maybe even genuinely pathbreaking work. The numbers suggest that. However, it is simply not enough to have a great idea and a great paper. If you're not at the right department, you won't have the right greybeard backing you. Without the right greybeard backing you all the way into a Critical Inquiry publication, the best you might do is some obscure journal. So much for your radical scholarship. That's where names matter. It may not be fair, but it's how the system works. I'm less concerned with reforming the system than with making sure I'm doing my best to survive within the system.

caw_caw_caw makes some decent points (and some less defensible ones), albeit not in the most diplomatic of tones. For what it is worth, I'm an applicant to film and visual studies (with strong interests in 18th century lit/cult as well, which is why I have at least two interesting lit programs on my application list this season). I'm a re-applicant, and since obtaining my MA from UChicago, I've (I want to believe) done a hell of a lot in trying to "understand" academia (mainly in my fields, but in the humanities at large). My observations and impressions are all guided by my personal ambition, which is to obtain a TT position at a research university. Yes, I'm going for *that* apple. Here are the things I believe are almost essential to at least positioning yourself as a competitive candidate for such jobs in the humanities: Who did you work with? Where did you work (this is obviously bound up with the previous question)? What did you work on? In that order. Someone mentioned Katherine Hayles. May I point out that A> N. Katherine Hayles is practically unique (I can only think of Brown's Wendy Chun offhand) in her mix of training; B> She earned her credentials in the bloody 70s. Robert Pippin, today, is one of the world's foremost philosophers. He's at Chicago. But you'll find that he does not have a starry pedigree either. Elaine Scarry, who took over the Aesthetics and General Th. of Value position at Harvard after Cavell, similarly does not come from a world-famous department. These are the exceptions. None of us, in all probability, is so special that these exceptions can be used as guidelines. I don't claim to know the inside info for English/Lit. at HYP. I do know that Harvard's program for film and visual studies is utterly unique (which cuts both ways--it is simultaneously too new and too radical, while offering the possibility of developing unique specializations). On the other hand, Yale's film program is...a bit dated. So that's where I agree that we should not fetishize HYP (but didn't we always know that anyway)? At the same time, I just want to make it clear that names (institution, mentor) do matter, a whole hell of a lot.

Not really sure what you're looking for, OP. It's evident that you are in a better position than a lot of applicants, but by the same token, when they're considering the final 30 applicants or so, more or less everyone will present similar profiles. What will set them apart are a set of factors nobody, not even with the best 'connections,' can predict: which professor is inclined to take on another advisee, which professor isn't a part of the reading committee and thus won't see your shout-out to him/her, who writes with technical perfection but in an utterly dull voice, who writes with a lively, innovative touch, and so on.