Swagato

There have been responses for some from USC, UC-I (just the one result posted on this site's Results table), UC-SB (same), and Northwestern has contacted a few people for interviews. Judging by past timelines, Berkeley and UChicago should be responding soon. Out of curiosity, what was the other department you applied to for Yale's joint Film Studies program?

Someone appears to have just posted an interview offer from Northwestern's Screen Cultures program. If the poster would provide more details... Wondering about this one since the interview date is cited as March 1-4. Do places really respond this far in advance? In any case, more details are welcome.

We overlap in all of them. Except I'm joint with Comp. Lit. for Yale. What is your general applicant profile/research interests?

Well, the UC's have definitely been moving one by one--I noticed results from UCSB, and now Irvine. I imagine UCLA/Berkeley can't be far behind. What are your proposed research interests, nix?

Sorry to butt into the Lit thread, but Berkeley only recently formed an autonomous Film Studies department, moving away from offering the film studies 'track' under the Rhetoric dept. So when you mentioned that they have results out, does that include any news from Film?

Previous contact is honestly not going to be the reason for someone's non-admission. Does it help if you have a fairly substantial relationship with a faculty member/s from well before admissions? Possibly. More than likely, your proposed research angle is NOT unique. That's where such a previous contact may at least cause one of the adcom members to go, "Hey, I've been talking to that fellow." By and large, I honestly think what really counts is putting yourself across as a compelling candidate by virtue of research proposal, documentation of research ability, and of course the evaluations of your professors. Buttress that with excellent numbers, and you have every reason to be seriously considered. And of course, the biggest factor of all will be fit--between yourself and the department/faculty/culture of the place you've applied to. nix: Are you currently attending, or will you be? Do you mind saying where you received the admission offer from?

Ironically, I had barely any time to prepare for the GRE as I had to move in response to a job offer. I took the GRE 3 hours after moving. I was mentally prepared to see an abysmal score and was already planning on ditching that application season--as it happened, things worked out for the better.

Which program is this for? Modern Culture and Media? Or something else?

Typically, if you are over 3.0, your application will at least be looked at. But this is coming from someone who had an undergraduate CGPA of slightly less than 2.5. I worked to ensure that -every- other component of my application would receive second glances (full Verbal score on GRE, stellar LORs despite my undergrad institution being a fairly unknown place, very strong writing sample+statement). I was able to get into one of the top programs in my field and earned my MA there. I'm waiting on Ph.D. decisions now, and this time around, my MA performance/research/LORs will take the spotlight. For support, my undergrad advisor has contributed a 4th LOR which gives his view of my progress from shaky undergrad to very competitive grad. We are, within reason, hopeful that all of this will be ample evidence that my undergraduate "numbers" are not the sum total of myself as a scholar. All of which is just to underscore very boldly the fact that you don't need to worry about your GPA. If one route doesn't work out, try another. Ensure you are maxing out every other facet of your application. Have a compelling, well-thought out research design. My suspicion is that both in the humanities and sciences, a good research design along with evidence of scholarly work can push an applicant to the top of the list even if they don't have amazing numbers. Add in sincere LORs, and you have a very competitive package.

I noticed that there were 1-2 posts in the Results section about USC-Cinematic Arts sending out interview notices/invites perhaps a day or two ago.

My references did not go in until at least a few days after the deadlines, generally. They went via Interfolio, mostly. That part never was an issue. As for replacing the SOP, I mentioned in the original post that it was well past the application deadline for at least two of the three places. I have replaced some materials at other places, but typically within 2-3 days--half a month to a month following the deadline is probably a bit too late for any replacement requests.

Led by Anthony Grafton, the AHA is currently leading academic bodies in pushing for valorization of non-traditional academic work as a viable career track. Of course, we know that non-traditional careers have always been around; it isn't anything new. But what is new today is that people are finally pushing for equal acceptance, and a break away from the orthodox 'stigma' that long accompanied such shifts away from academia. This is a great thing, and you need to take advantage of this. If you begin in 2012, you won't finish until, perhaps, 2017 at an early estimate. New ranks of professors are swelling who have grown up in a more 'wired' era, who are far more attuned to the plethora of career options available apart from the traditional tenure-hunt. I would look into the leading programs in your field, and I would reach out to junior (but established) faculty with frankness. I would especially reach out to programs that have the reputation of being 'feeders' for thinktanks (Kennedy, etc.). History is especially marketable today more than ever if you are interested in the Middle East. Combining it with any sort of policy work will make you very, very valuable. The one thing I would NOT do is deceive your future advisor, or department, or anything. It is far, far better to be viewed--whether with disdain by a fuddy-duddy stuck in the 1970s-mindset, or with respect by a newer-generation faculty member--as someone who leveraged a history PhD into policy/thinktank work/non-traditional academic work, than to leave the scar of deception for life. Besides, not everyone at this level is in it for academia, however much we may dream of it. My feeling is that admissions committees know already that people go for a PhD in order to pursue research. Academic? Great! Non-traditional? Increasingly acceptable.

What kind of information is this? It is, I think, a bit odd to receive financial aid information before receiving any intimation about admissions. By reading the email, can you determine if this is a "general information"-type letter, or does it contain specifics related to you? My guess is that it may simply be an informational letter, but if you are in doubt, you can always reach out to the department.

I agree, it sounds as though you'd ostensibly be as competitive as any other reasonable applicant. Is it just me, or is it the case in recent years that the top programs are admitting almost exclusively from MA-holders? I had an English BA when I applied for the first round, which probably didn't help much--took advantage of a year at Chicago to get an MA--and now I'm awaiting the results of my second (hopefully much improved) effort. UChicago and Berkeley seem the earliest to respond, with others following through February, and some coming in around early March. I'd like to work on 19th. century visual technology+critical/philosophical discourse surrounding the emergence of that 'new' media, and pursue a comparative course of study by exploring contemporary 'new media' in context. The anchor point would be Modernist theoretical considerations, especially that of the Frankfurt School and some newer--and somewhat overlooked--figures (Deleuze, Lyotard, Bergson, et al.).

Hello there, it looks like we have many overlap targets. What is your background and projected research interests, if you don't mind sharing?

filmluv: Here's the thing. William Pannapacker is not exactly what academia at its best is. Look at where he teaches. What is useful about Pannapacker's often-polemical pieces is that it reflects the reality of the 'majority' of wannabe-scholars. The truth has always been that the best jobs, postdocs, etc. go to graduates of the top programs. This is definitely not a bad thing! Only the rare genius comes out of a middling state college/university and then stuns his or her field and is hired to a top-50 institution. Where I think Pannapacker has some use is when he points out that, more than likely, your Ph.D. from the University of Kansas will not result in you getting that R1 postdoc position, or that top-20 SLAC tenure-track position, and forget about that top-10 R1 university tenure-track offer. Unfortunately, (I believe) driven in part by the peculiarly American mantra of "if you try hard enough you will make it to the top" many fresh graduates think that "a Ph.D." will get them that dream job. A popular notion of full-time professorship is that they work 9 months in the year, slack off over summer, work barely 20 hours or so a week, etc. I am not making this up. Even among Ph.D. students, there are many who simply do not have a fair vision of the unending work that goes into earning tenure and being a professor at a competitive institution. You have no hours, you have to take your work home with you, you must be engaged in work nearly all the time. And all this AFTER you actually get that tenure-track job. In order to even get there you need to work your butt off in a top Ph.D. program, network like hell, establish connections, publish, present, write... Most undergraduates really do not recognise these realities, and at least in part this is the fault of faculty at many institutions. Part of it may even be due to the fact that most senior/otherwise-distinguished faculty today earned their jobs nearly 20-30 years ago. Things were very different back then. We're all familiar with the image of the absent-minded professor who doesn't know how to use e-mail. It exists for a reason. I believe the situation is improving, with successive generations of faculty being more and more intrinsically 'wired' and aware of non-traditional academic tracks, etc. Cultural norms evolve, too. I think, ultimately, that while Pannapacker goes too far, he does begin from valid premises. You simply cannot tell a graduate from a bottom-50 SLAC to focus only on their Ph.D. because "God, you love it so much, so you must pursue it!" This would be suicidal. At the very least, be sure to lay down the facts for the student, and then allow them to make the decision. Provide your feedback to the student, because you, as a successful faculty member, are in a position to do so. That, I think, strikes a comfortable middle ground.

Helpplease123: Okay, thank you. I shall keep hoping that my entire application isn't tossed out based on one error. emmm: It isn't a deadly error as it was not a direct quote attributed to the wrong person, etc. It can...if the adcom is feeling generous...be seen as a simple mistake rather than evidence of lack of knowledge.

There's always that one thing that comes back to bite you in the rear... In my SOP's closing argument/summation, I refer to a claim made by one of film theory's classical greats (André Bazin). Essentially, I make a parallel between a claim he had made in a particular essay (regarding the development of technology in classical film) and the emergence of new media technologies today. The problem is, I've attributed this claim to the wrong essay. It is not a direct quote; my sentence runs thus: His essays are typically found in the two volume collection, What is Cinema vols. 1 and 2, and I've ended up naming the essay following the actual one where he makes his claim. Moreover, this claim is repeated often in his writings, but was made first in the essay I should have mentioned but did not. How screwed am I? Will this one line in a ~1000 word SOP be enough to make them summarily dismiss me? Because frankly, my other stats are at least competitive (high GRE with full Verbal score, high Master's GPA from a top-5 program in the field, sound recommendations from major names, strong writing sample, and an otherwise-strong SOP, and an overall good fit with the programs). Adcoms are comprised of humans, and they know the drama of applications. Should I assume that they will consider this a major/gross/inexcusable error? Please advise. NINJA EDIT: I noticed both the early responders suggested I try and replace my SOP. However it is probably a bit too late for that as the questionable line appears in all my applications, which went in around Dec. 1, Dec. 15, and Dec. 30-Jan 1.

Letters can be tailored. Interfolio is basically just a dossier service. Meaning, if your letter writers are willing to write 15 different letters (tailored), then they can upload all 15 to Interfolio. Although, obviously, this is not much different from submitting 15 different letters through the universities' own application system. As far as tailoring goes...I've applied to around 11-12 places, and I would never dream of asking my writers (who are each very high up in the field) to write that many custom letters. It's just asking for trouble when an MA student imposes that tedious a task upon well-known faculty, IMO. As it is, I considered myself fortunate that they were willing to customize the letters for my top 3 choices. So those 3 were uploaded individually, while the 4th letter (per writer) was a more general letter. This last one was uploaded to Interfolio, and I used their service to send it out to the rest of my applications. This sounds more complex than it actually was. In short, my writers had to do just 4 total uploads. I honestly have no idea about how things are at most top-10 places, since I've only had one encounter with such a place. The general impression I got both from people in the PhD cohort and other faculty was that it is really unlikely that professors feel happy about doing ~10 individual uploads. This can, of course, vary amongst institutions. Interfolio also allows you to store your letters for a year (with the basic service). So I'm not sure about the not-recent part, since that's entirely the user's choice (i.e., whether they want to send a freshly uploaded letter, or an old one). The list is not visible to end-users; it is on their end. I was able to simply read off my targets for them to verify whether the institutions required additional forms. You are right, however, in suggesting that it may have to do with being a subscriber first, as I was already using their service when I had my talks with them.

<p> This sounds very reasonable, and is what I've done as well. I chose my places based on faculty and research fit (doesn't everyone...), and each of my statements had a section providing examples of research interest overlap or people whose research is in dialogue with my own. In my top choices, I was able to make specific links between my Master's work and the scholarship of X, Y, etc. which, at the least, cannot be taken for empty name-dropping. We'll see. Aubergine: Are you a current applicant, or are you already a doctoral student?</p>

You need to look at Harvard's Visual and Environmental Studies department. Check their Critical Media Practice sub-field, as well as the Sensory Ethnography Lab. Their department sounds exceptionally close to what you are looking for. As well, MIT has a Comparative Media program that has much of what you seem to want. Also look at the University of Rochester's Visual and Cultural Studies program.

I can only speak for humanities. Chicago, Berkeley, Harvard (in that order) had the smoothest application interfaces and website design this time around.

Looks like a great list. What is your background/any stats you care to 'fess up to?

Call Interfolio and discuss it with them. I've had excellent experiences with their staff, and they are extremely helpful and know their work. They have a constantly-updating list of programs and institutions that present additional questions, or other potential issues. You can check your list against theirs, which would help you tailor your applications.

I've seen surprisingly little activity regarding this year's Film/Cinema and Media Studies applications. What's going on, people? Name your places, hopes, areas of study, and other relevant information and let's get a sense of what's happening this year.