Swagato

I don't wish to bash the author of the article, mostly because the errors of her thinking are so many and so clear that not much needs to be said here. I do regret, however, that her blanket statements equating graduate school with some kind of deferral of reality simply reinforces an already-existing ideology that sees us (and graduate careers, etc.) as exactly that. In this era of far-right assault upon education and the generally anti-intellectual rhetoric we hear, I'm disappointed that Slate chose to give credibility to such ill-informed junk. That's all.

My experience is in cinema studies. I went into UChicago's MAPH aiming to develop my profile for PhD work, and I frankly had a very basic foundation prior to that. At Chicago I came to know a great deal, and my interests have expanded well beyond traditional "film studies" as it is thought of in the popular consciousness. Cinema (and media studies) experienced perhaps the most hybridised institutionalisation of all humanities disciplines, since we have worked liberally across ethnographic, statistical, anthropological, political, cultural, psychological, linguistic, historical, and philosophical divisions. My sense is that the field has undergone a major shift toward historical research. "Media Archaeology" is in fact the name of a book I'm reading right now (by Erkki Huhtamo and Jussi Parikka). Another recent 'turn' has been toward film and media philosophy. This is not just taking pre-existing philosophical standards and slapping film or media-works that 'reflect' or refract those ideas onto them, but rather a "from-the-inside" look at how contemporary visual culture asserts itself philosophically. At the latest Society for Cinema and Media Studies conference in Boston, affect was the word of the day. One of the field's most respected scholars remarked on how cognitivism positioned itself a few years ago as a 'new' way to do cinema and media studies, and affect theory poses the logical extension of that. I am working on developing a sound basis in a historical and theoretical approach toward film and visual culture studies. My interest is less in the traditional model of film studies and more toward a theoretical engagement with contemporary visual culture--particularly in non-theatrical film and "new media" art--informed by/in dialogue with the history of visuality.

At the same time, it is (IMO) essential to demonstrate (as an applicant) that you are keenly aware of contemporary developments, that you have the potential to articulate a research vision for your scholarly future. After all the reason a top department will want to train you is because you will then go forth, publish, bring in grants, publish, and generally promote your field's scholarship as a primary goal. So I can't honestly envision an applicant to English programs in Fall 2012 talking in fiery tones of the glories of political modernism/structuralism/semiotic approaches. Knowing where the 'heat' is can only aid in formulating a sharply focused SOP.

Just a quick question here. I currently have an MA (Cinema and Media Studies--UChicago) and a BA in English, but I don't really have internship experience at galleries or museums. I do have substantial professional experience in PR, but again, no museum/gallery experience. I've applied to a couple of jobs at MoMA (Assistant Archivist and Assistant to Dir. of Comms.--you can find the postings easily on their jobs site). Should I expect an interview, or am I just not even going to be considered because I don't have specific museum experience?

Rainy, I am planning to do just that. Could you PM me? I'd love to discuss strategies/how to broach the issue, etc. If anyone else wants to chime in with suggestions, please go ahead.

I guess what honestly rubs me the wrong way is that I pulled my arse off a sub-3.0 undergraduate GPA into UChicago, which has one of the best departments in my field, and yet couldn't leverage that straight into the PhD. I know I'm being unreasonable and hell, I've even gotten amazing feedback from many GC'ers and faculty who have been vital to making me understand what I need to reshape and fix about my SOP/writing sample...but still, it sometimes feels like I jumped across the Grand Canyon and then tripped over a rock. But hey. We've all seen how amazing this community is, and how sincerely fucking hard we work to get where we want to. And I've seen most of us achieve it. So I'm going to get right back to work and we'll see how things go in a year. I'm saying this not just for myself, but for anyone else who reads this and may be in a similar place.

Well, was just told by the DGS that I am "not on the waiting list for the remaining position" (odd phrasing..?). I'll take that to mean a no, which means a wipe-out for this admission cycle. I am, however, determined to pursue this, and therefore will be around next fall. And, if required, the next, etc.

I have not been offered any details whatsoever regarding my waitlist status, despite explicit requests to the DGS. All I was told that I'd know more by/around the 16th.

Film Studies. Which for Iowa falls within the same dept. (Cinema and Comp. Lit.).

Germaine, are you for English, or Comparative Literature?

Read the University of Chicago's Philosophy admissions page. There is a fantastically detailed breakdown of the admissions process, and I strongly suspect that the process is very similar to this at most top-end places across the humanities.

Just heard back. No further news. I probably will have to wait at least until the 16th if not more. If anyone is still debating their U. Iowa Film Studies decision, I don't want to rush you, but anytime last minute would be great to let them know!

I cracked and followed up with the DGS with a short, hyper-polite email requesting some (any!) news of the ongoing situation. Hopefully he doesn't take that as a cue to toss me in the reject pile. We'll see. ¬_¬

Interesting. I thought it was more or less normal for waitlisting departments to at least give an inquiring waitlistee some sense of their position? Or at the very least, some information about the waitlist situation (size, expected cohort, etc.)?

Are you on the waitlist for that department? Or are you just waiting on any news, period? Also, forgive the impertinence, but my general impression is that UIowa isn't among the most prominent programs for English--feel free to correct me though. I know their Comp Lit + Cinema department is amazing, though.

Thanks for this. An open question which anyone can respond to: The 15th is not far away. As I understand it, this is sort of a deadline for students to whom offers have been made to respond to the university making that offer. But we all know that in academia such deadlines are more of guidelines, really. Since I'm on a waiting list, U. Iowa won't turn to that list until they've heard from all their initial offers. That in itself could take upto and including the 15th, right? So I should still expect to hear things after the 15th, possibly?

So what you're saying is that there isn't much realistic chance of a waitlist admission, if I understand correctly? Not only must I hope that they didn't extend admissions by too much (i.e., offering 20 spots hoping for a cohort of 5), but also that enough admitted students must decline such that they can turn to the waitlist. And on top of that I would have to be high enough on the list, or, if not ranked, then my research interest should align favourably. Great.

I guess I'll camp out in this thread for a bit. I had written this year off (I'm in Cinema and Media Studies), but then U. Iowa (a great, GREAT program in my field with phenomenal placement rates for decades) decided to tell me I'm on their "short" waiting list. Well, rats. Anyway, I affirmed my interest to the Director (who was the person that emailed me), asked about expected cohort size, and whether he could provide any further details (like rank on the list, for example...). Iowa being a public university, I'm a bit confused as to how their system works. My experiences have only ever been with private institutions. I was told they hope to have more information in about a week. Doing a bit of digging, I found their graduate class data (http://www.grad.uiowa.edu/graduate-program-data/48F/Film%20Studies-Ph.D.). Perhaps some of you could translate what it means if they admitted 7 for 2011, but only 3 enrolled? My guess is that just means 3 finally enrolled out of the 7 offered admission, but does that include or exclude any 2011 waitlisters? Or were there 7 total offers including initial + any waitlist admits? Do universities typically extend offers to more than they anticipate admitting? So I may be on a list of alternates, Z, that they will turn to -after- going through their anticipated admits (X) + their safety admits (Y)? Hope that makes sense. I guess my confusion with this scenario is: what if every one of their offered admits says yes and then they end up with more confirmed admits than they expected?

Well, colour me purple. Just received an email from U. Iowa informing me that I'm waitlisted. If any of you good GradCafe folks (or anyone else reading this) know that you won't be attending Iowa, please do the right thing (and pay homage to Spike Lee). I will post further details when I am able to.

Well, I can only offer my perspective (with the best knowledge), and the perspectives of several of the current PhD students both at my MA institution and elsewhere. As always, mileages vary. I did my MA at UChicago's MAPH, which is widely considered a 'feeder' program for top-level PhDs in the humanities. You probably already know the debate going on around that program, but I shan't engage with that since I'm only concerned with my experience and that of my peers, which was an extremely positive one and has ended very successfully for the majority of them. While at Chicago, my interactions with not only the program staff and faculty, but also many current students, indicated that this sort of re-trial is far more common than we likely think. I met more than two current students (in different departments of the humanities), who eerily mirror my own position today (namely that they were dropped almost entirely on the basis of a non-viable SOP). A year later? Both were in. Likewise, I've communicated with others via email who have similar experiences to share. I can't agree to this, frankly. Your SOP is far and away the most important part of your application. Based on the feedback and information I've collected this year, I am very convinced that the two things that can get a person in above all else are the SOP and the writing sample. Especially at UChicago, where faculty were quite open about the fact that they weigh the SOP and writing sample more heavily than anything else. Other places indicated similar sentiments. Assuming that you have your numbers in order and strong recommendations (which, let's face it, are things all the more viable candidates will share), what sets you apart? What gives them an insight into you as a scholar and a person? Your SOP and writing sample. To change either of these radically changes your application. I know of people who were rejected simply because the department didn't have space for a specialist in their proposed area that year. A year or two later, they did. Or, their first application proposed immature interests/interests in an area the department wasn't looking to grow in, etc. Next time around, with appropriate changes, due to a much better fit, everything clicked. I'm not saying you *will* get in a second time. But I am saying that reworking your SOP (and if necessary your writing sample) change your application more than you claim. You certainly are taking a chance when you go up another year. And of course one aspect of that chance is the risk that next year's cohort will be super-charged and you will be knocked out early on. But that is a chance we all have to take. Certainly the committee knows you're reapplying (though I am not sure how many professors actually remember details--and this is your chance to gain an edge by creating and cultivating a POI relationship). You're not becoming stale because you are a 2nd or 3rd year re-applicant. This forum alone has people who got in on their 2nd or 3rd try. For me, next year will technically be my 2nd try after earning my MA. I definitely don't see that (based on what I've learned) as risking becoming a stale applicant. You only fester if you don't adapt, mature, and evolve your research + research interests. One big thing in favour of reapplicants--if faculty indeed compare old files, which they do at Yale, for example--is that they can clearly trace the intellectual evolution of an applicant. If it is for the better, this can even work in your favour. Risking being silly? One of the most distinguished professors at UChicago still maintains that he faces dismissive attitudes and scoffing from certain parts, because his area and work is considered a waste of time and silly by these people. In academia, you cannot go far with such a thin skin. If out of all the concerns you should be focussed on, you're wondering whether someone thinks you're silly or not, let's just say that priorities need to be re-assigned. A sincerely refashioned and killer research proposal, whether it is on the first try or the fourth, is still a research proposal that works--because it interests the committee enough to get you in. That's what counts.

As someone with an MA who is likely going to be shut out this year and is going to reapply next year, I'm going to disagree with some of the advice in here. I have been fortunate enough to secure my MA from one of the top departments in my field, and I have the backing of field-leading recommendations. Most of my reapplications will be to the same places. However, my reasoning is that I have the numerical criteria required to get through several rounds of cuts to perhaps the final few. This time around, that is where (based on feedback) I have fallen out of consideration. My main weaknesses are a rickety SOP and, perhaps, an MA thesis excerpt that can do with more fine-tuning. Publications and conferences are neither expected nor demanded at this stage. Am I working on trying to get both under my belt? Yes, because I have a year to make the attempt, and it is the least I can do. However, I firmly believe what I have been told by most senior faculty: quality over quantity. And the simple fact is that a pre-PhD student is not likely to present at the major conferences in the field. Or to publish in the leading journals. Is there (probably) going to be one in your cohort who has done either, or both? I assume so. But also know that it is not the norm. Thus, my take is: if you get the chance to present or publish, take it (bearing in mind the venue). If not, don't sweat it. My focus through this year will be to establish meaningful relations with POIs (beyond what I had done before), step back from the immediate after-effects of my application outcomes, take a hard survey of the field, reorient my interests, read like hell, interact with scholars (students and faculty), and frame a viable PhD project. Then, I will work on transforming this into an effective SOP--this means not an essay that "states what I will be doing as a PhD student" because 90% of the time your project changes once you're in. Rather, it'll be an essay that demonstrates that I "speak the language;" that I can frame an interesting problem, consider it in serious fashion, and outline ways of engaging with it. Aside from that, I'll be shoring up my language requirements and, possibly, reworking my MA thesis. This is what I have so far. I'm sure the plan of action will evolve as we go. But do not be afraid of reapplying to the same place as before, on the condition that you can (reasonably) accurately identify the weaknesses in your present application.

Just as an addition to this thread, my friend (we were both in MAPH a year ago; I in Cinema and Media Studies and he in English) has been accepted to Johns Hopkins for English. He was also accepted to NYU. I'd encourage you to browse the many threads here on MAPH before you decide. If you can make use of it, MAPH will be a very, very good thing for your future.

Chicago isn't very formalist...I'd say Yale's Film Studies program is much more formalist in comparison. Aside from Professor Yuri Tsivian's Cinemetrics project (which can probably be taken as formalist approach, but I think it is more about mass-scale structural analysis), most of Chicago's focus is in historical/international approaches. They are also expanding into new media and East Asian studies particularly. If anything, Chicago's ethos can be summed up by claiming their interest is in the tradition of moving and projected images--in all their manifestations.

If waitingforgodard has been admitted to Emory's MA program, s/he is almost certainly fully funded, since when I was waitlisted there back in 09-10, I learned that they admit ~6 and fund them fully. The downside is that USC and UCLA are both more prestigious in this field, and that should help them greatly next time around.

Iowa really is late this year. I've spoken with the graduate coordinator on two occasions, weeks apart, and both times she could only apologetically mention that the committee hasn't released any notifications officially--positive or otherwise. There was a lone positive claimant some weeks ago, but no further details were posted. At this point I'm not even waiting on them, but it would be nice to find out one way or the other.