Swagato

I enjoyed reading most of what you wrote until I reached the section following the quoted sentence. I think you make two basic errors here. First, you confuse teaching ability and research ability. One does not imply the other, nor should it. It is entirely a question of what the would-be scholar wishes to do. More importantly, it matters in what direction his or her capabilities lie. There are phenomenal teachers who are also mediocre scholars. And there are phenomenal researchers who are mediocre teachers. And then there are both. But not every academic should aim to be both. For the most part, we are at a stage of our lives when what matters most is our ability to demonstrate our research capabilities. Teaching is not the primary criterion here. Even when we are in the midst of our postdoctoral appointments, or even further on when we are on the tenure clock, research still takes ultimate priority (unless by that time we have already made the decision to seek out a SLAC teaching-prioritized career). Note, however, that while an R1 scholar would have not much trouble transitioning to an SLAC, I don't think it is nearly as easy for an SLAC person to demonstrate qualifications to transition to an R1 position. In any case, the main point here is that as graduate students, research is our life rather than teaching. And my own perception is that junior scholars should still prioritize research over teaching. The second problem is in your advocacy for a sort of holistic critical field. This is quite simply impossible, and links back to your faulty comparison of literary studies versus biological studies. The nature of criticism is that over time, different methodologies and approaches arise out of different social and cultural conditions to engage with a certain central object. Sometimes, even this object becomes unstable. A great example is in my own field, cinema and media studies. For most of the 20th century, film remained a firm central kernel around which various modalities of discourse emerged: High Theory, the historical turn, the cultural turn, and so on. Yet from the late 1990s onward, cinema studies entered a fascinatingly exciting period, where the central object--film--became increasingly destabilized by the emergence of digital 'new' media. Far more than the advent of television, new media rapidly and convincingly made the point that film, in its celluloid avatar, could no longer be considered the central object of inquiry. Indeed the field now incorporates both classical concerns (modernism, critical theory, feminist/queer perspectives, textual analysis, medium-based approaches) and rapidly expanding aspects such as experimental video, museum installation, the moving image and its environment (Harvard's Visual and Environmental Studies program, for example), reaching much further back into history to excavate the story of the moving and projected image beyond cinema, and so on. Scholars like Patrick Jagoda and WJT Mitchell are doing brilliant work in expanding outward to explore images in our world, their social action, convergent/emergent media, interaction design, etc. The whole field is in throes, and it is a damned good thing. My point in this brief account of the state of excitement in my field is to illustrate that unlike the sciences, which tends to be accretive (while incorporating 'revolutions'), the humanities weighs more heavily on the side of such upheavals rather than gradual accretion. Of course there are exceptions, but in general, situations emerge where, for example, the merits of Derridean deconstructive studies seem less stunning a few decades later due to a new methodology or approach evolving, which offers a far more rigorous yet expansive engagement with the material. In his day, Derrida was celebrated. Today, not so much. Innovation in research must be privileged, while of course vetting for mere gimmickry. While the sciences are data-driven, the humanities are context-driven. In the sciences, it is enough to uncover a new piece of data. In the humanities, it is not enough to uncover new data or propose new ways of seeing; one must also orient this with the field overall in order to demonstrate its impact. I strongly feel that the humanities should never operate in the blandly 'objective' vein of scientific study, but rather seek to continue its hermeneutic tradition while employing as much analytical rigor as possible.

I would recommend, perhaps counter-intuitively, that you begin by reading one of the most recent and forward-looking books in the area of film and visual studies: David Rodowick (Harvard)'s "The Virtual Life of Film." Follow that up by reading his paper, "An Elegy for Theory." In these two texts, Rodowick, who founded 3-4 film studies programs (Yale, Harvard, King's College London, and I think Rochester), both casts a brief eye over the history of "film studies" as it developed, and looks to the future of cinema studies as a discipline in a constant state of flux. The "cultural" turn in humanities (proliferation of race/gender/related issues) aside, perhaps the greatest concern in cinema studies has been the photographic ontology of film. Every discipline takes some object as its kernel: literary studies <-> text, art history <-> paintings/sculpture/other artworks..but what about film studies? How does cinema deal with the disappearance of film itself? Or is film not at all about film but more about the experience? In which case you open up onto a huge array of philosophical inquiries. Anyway, you can see how interesting and diverse it gets. Rodowick's two texts will give you a place to start. Get a hold of Andre Bazin's "What is Cinema" vols 1 and 2. By that time you should at least be able to navigate.

Please review the excellent information available on this forum regarding the University of Chicago's Master of Arts in the Program of Humanities. You will notice after a thorough reading that it produces polarised opinions, and for good reasons. However, read my comments on it. Without overtly promoting myself, I can tell you that the MAPH targets a very specific type of student, and you sound very like it. The places you have mentioned in your list are all ultra-competitive. Harvard, Yale, etc. do not take more than 3 students a year, if even that. You also have not considered UChicago's department of Cinema and Media Studies, which is without question one of the top in the field. With the unfortunate passing of Miriam Hansen (extraordinary work in modernism, the public sphere, vernacular modernism, and her Babel and Babylon is required reading for any serious film scholar), UChicago still has Noa Steimatsky (war/post-war cinema), Tom Gunning, Yuri Tsivian, Laura Letinsky (who would be very much in your line of interests), Jim Lastra, and a host of other scholars drawn from across the division of humanities. The reason I advocate the MAPH is because if you can make use of it, it will be a superb one year spent refining your interests which, like mine when I applied in 2009 to many of the same places you did, are very broad and very diffuse at the moment. I will say, however, that my MAPH experience has been utterly crucial in letting me focus my interests to a point where I am very much in a better place this time around as I prepare to write the doctoral applications. Also, although their placement rates are not advertised (and there is good reason for this, as the program invites extremely diverse applicants, and the ultimate resolution of placement rates is a question better asked of the individual departments), for CMS at least, placement rates are extremely good. UChicago tries to admit at least 1 MAPH graduate every year, and they look for a cohort of about 3-5. Most importantly, and I cannot speak for the universities I have not experienced, although I can for UChiCago; the CMS department here really goes far in standing behind graduating PhD students and helping them secure jobs. For example, in this difficult year (2011), two CMS graduates earned their PhDs, and both have found excellent positions (one at Colby and one at Williams, I believe). I'm unsure about tenure-track status, but even a 1-or-2 year appointment to institutions like that is very beneficial in the long run. Lastly, the UChicago CMS department is extraordinarily diverse, and I'm sure this applies to other places as well. Harvard is notable in that this year, all 3 admits were specialists in avant-garde cinema. Typically, each school is known for a certain moment in cinema studies; UChicago can be said to specialise in Soviet film politics, avant-garde practices both American and European, silent cinema, and modernism studies. I know that they have just hired an expert in East Asian cinema, and I have heard talk of expanding more into new media studies. This last is probably common for all good departments now, though. Berkeley used to be, or is, known for spectatorship studies. Yale and Harvard share a common interest in pushing the frontiers of post-filmic cinema, new media questions, etc. Whatever the case, you're not going to really get a sense of where you might best serve and be served until you can refine your focus at least to the point of having a viable research goal, whether that is theoretical or not. Given how fantastically competitive CMS admissions are, think about first doing an MA. Emory funds all 6 of their annual MA program admits. Chicago's MAPH does not, but they do offer limited partial scholarships. I don't know if there are other similar programs, but I definitely suggest thinking about all of this.

May I ask why you're considering an MA in cinema/media studies? Others are welcome to correct me, but in my experience, an MA, being a non-terminal degree in the field, typically does not offer the sort of scope that the PhD does. While you will be qualified for instructor/lecturer/adjunct positions, I don't know that you'll gain a whole lot else out of it. In addition, MA programs are typically unfunded; Emory is a notable exception here, but they only admit perhaps 6 students a year and are thus able to fund their tuition. On the other hand, applying for and being accepted to a PhD program means you are certain of funding. Most well-known PhD programs (and I can't see why you would want to go anywhere other than a high-ranking program, bearing in mind the contemporary job market in academia) have cut down on their admissions in order to be able to accept fewer students yet be able to fund them completely. So that makes me ask why you're even considering "less popular" programs. Emory, by the way, is not all that unknown; it's one of the most coveted programs around. As for the others, Indiana and Wisconsin are relatively well known, but they offer full PhD programs. I think you would do much better to consider PhD programs and apply accordingly. If you want to leave after earning an MA, you're free to do so. Given that most MA programs, as noted, do not offer much funding, and considering the current market conditions, it is unconscionable to take on the debt (or even if you can pay out of pocket, invest that much money) into a program that is very unlikely to give you back much in material returns. That being said, I would suggest you do look at the leading PhD programs: Berkeley, NYU, University of Chicago, Yale, Harvard, University of Iowa, Wisconsin, Brown. Also consider MIT's program in media studies, USC, UCLA, and Columbia (though I am not certain about the last). Lastly, I would very strongly urge you to consider my own program: the Master of Arts Program in the Humanities at the University of Chicago. A quick review of posts on this forum will show you polarised opinions on the program. However, I have described my own, very positive, experience elsewhere, so please review that. Briefly, I applied to Chicago's doctoral program, but I did not have the sort of rigorous preparation they expect. I was referred to the MAPH program. Although it is expensive, it has provided me a superb foundation for my application to doctoral programs this winter. Most of the people who graduate from my program intending to continue to doctoral studies (and assuming they have worked accordingly during their year here) manage to make it to some of the top programs around. Alternatively, if you are bent on just an MA, you can craft your program of study across the entire graduate division at the university so that you get to study what you want, how you want.

I doubt it. I don't really see how someone can enroll for an entire quarter and take courses and then expect to get their money for the quarter back if they decide to leave at the end of that quarter. Tuition is billed on a per-quarter basis, so I would assume that you would have to pay for the quarter that you were enrolled. I wouldn't expect a refund in such a case. On the other hand there may be a "withdraw by" date which does allow for such refunds, but I never checked.

I completed the MAPH this past June. What Chi-grad said is, in effect, spot on. The University of Chicago is clearly a place of dizzying opportunities and resources. The MAPH, per se, offers you a gateway into that world. It holds your hand for a few weeks, but after that you truly are on your own. My sense of the program was that it is meant to do something very specific. On one hand, it rapidly weeds out chaff from grain. People who simply cannot handle it, or get disoriented within it, or otherwise lose their footing...it's a good thing. Rather than allow them to continue a futile PhD and an unrewarding life afterward, they can simply realise, right now within the MAPH, that an academic life is not for them. At the end, they'll still have a Master's from a world-renowned institution, and they can do what they wish with it. Or they can even withdraw, if they choose to! On the other hand, for those who both have the aptitude for and the determination/vision for a PhD and an academic career, the MAPH is the best thing that can happen. They can, and do, quickly grasp the enormity of resources allowed by the MAPH. Essentially, you're free to do what you will. So, it is entirely up to you to craft a course program, stick to it, alter it, network with faculty and scholars, establish a reputation, nourish relationships, and in general, lay down the groundwork for a successful academic future. Is tuition high? Of course it is. Is it worth it? Only if you can make it worth it. Some do, and some don't. My only concern during my whole year was that the Core course is, perhaps, a bit of a shock. Especially to people who did not already have the kind of rigorous and intellectually demanding aptitude that UChicago expects as a matter of routine. Other than that, though, I have zero regrets.

If you are looking for programs in the critical study of cinema and media, you absolutely must consider the University of Chicago, University of Iowa, and Northwestern University. Iowa is where film studies exploded, and many leading scholars today trace their roots back to Iowa (Dudley Andrew of Yale, for example). You need to begin familiarising yourself with the past work done by scholars at all these places, what they are working on now, and generally get a sense of the cross-currents in conversation upon the topic. Acquire knowledge of canonical moments in the history of cinema and its study: Arnheim, Bazin, Metz, Merleau-Ponty, Sarris, Mulvey, Gunning/Gaudreault, Tsivian, Rodowick, Hansen, et. al. Know the topology of the field as much as you can. Not details, but make yourself capable of mapping out the general landscape. Details will come later. Evaluate your own interests in relation to this map of the field. Are you interested in the history of cinema and visual media? 'New media'? Projection? Sound? Modernity? So-called "High Theory?" Then observe how your places of interest narrow accordingly. WashU offers (perhaps the only in USA) a fully funded Master's program in film studies/film and media studies. Gaylyn Studler left Michigan and Emory to go to there. Gary Wihl left Emory and Rice to go there. Henry Schvey is also at WashU/WUSTL. Pittsburgh, I think, also has an MA program. Wisconsin had David Bordwell and Kristin Thompson, but I am not sure either of them teach regularly anymore. Columbia? As far as I know they don't have a PhD program in cinema studies. You missed out Berkeley, too. USC has traditionally cared more about film technique and production rather than critical studies. Getting a move on what I outlined here would be a good start.

Costs are indeed tricky to figure out since they are measured per course + other expenses (living, etc.). See the financial aid/related areas of the University's main site. The MAPH's website is, simply, http://maph.uchicago.edu Good luck.

Well, then. I'm in the MAPH at UChicago, Cinema/Media Studies track. I have minimal experience in film theory (3 courses in undergrad at a not-so-great place). I feel like I've been tossed into the deep end, held under, and made to figure out how the hell to come back up for air...and strangely enough, I have never loved being in college/university more than I have this past quarter. It was intense as anything, and often I felt like there was just. no. way. I could handle all the reading, synthesise them, assimilate them into coherent papers...much less get top grades from leading scholars and what not. I was also terrified of being completely ignored for being a 'newb' and such. Yes, I did feel stupid. And yes, I'm sure I came off as a total ingenue at times during discussions. But now I'm facing winter break and my grades have been surprisingly strong across the board. I've had encouraging comments on papers, I've found professors to be a varied lot–some have been amazingly approachable and personable, others not so much. I realise I sound like I'm gushing, but I am <censored< excited about the next two quarters (the program lasts a year) and I'm excited about my thesis project. All is not sunny, though. My biggest challenge right now is figuring out how to read in graduate school. Reading every text cover to cover seems implausible given the pace of work, amount of work, and the plethora of literature around. Film studies is among the most interdisciplinary fields around, so it is quite possible that for a given project you may find relevant scholarship in anthropology, neuroscience, cognitive psychology, physical science, art history, visual studies, philosophy...among others. Long story short, I'm worried about being thorough enough in going through my bibliography and selecting the most accurately relevant research available, and so on. Any advice on this?

I'm in the MAPH at the University of Chicago, so my time-line is slightly different since it is a one-year program. My focus is in cinema studies. Our timeline runs something like this: Vague idea of MA thesis formulated during first quarter Read, read, read during winter break. Figure out starting bibliography. Figure out advisor during Winter quarter and keep working on bibliography/draft/etc. Finish up during Spring quarter and present/defend in early-mid June. Ideal length is around 35 pages. Currently, I'm experiencing some major "WTF?" because of how many books and articles I have dumped into my initial biblio. Naturally, there will be a winnowing process, but my question to others with experience, or PhD students, is: how do you do graduate reading? It's almost impossible to actually read each page of each book and make notes and what not (although I would -love- to do that). So how do you read in graduate school?

Chicago has a dedicated Cinema and Media Studies department, but yes, there are many cross-disciplinary professors.

Hi everyone. I figured after successfully completing (well, almost) the first quarter at the MAPH, I would post a short update. First off: yes, obviously it's expensive. If money is your deal-or-no-deal factor, then you should decide based on that. I live off-campus so my living expenses are lower, and so far my budget indicates I am well under the "sticker price" quoted by UChicago. So I'm basically paying their tuition price and all, but saving on the residential factor. I'm not working part-time. More on that later. The program itself: I'm in the Cinema and Media Studies track. I'd hoped for PhD admissions right after BA, but I just didn't have the credentials and experience. 2 undergrad film courses combined with a dodgy GPA, etc. I had mitigating factors, and I definitely have extremely strong reasons for wishing to pursue an academic career, which evidently were successfully conveyed in my application since I ended up waitlisted at Emory for their MA program and admitted to Chicago. I will say that the MAPH is ridiculously intense. My assigned readings for one film course alone have more (by volume) than the readings for the 'Core' course. By assigned readings I mean readings assigned by my professor in addition to the required texts. And this does not include suggested readings. I will say that, based on the three courses I'm taking for credit this quarter and the fourth course I'm sitting in on, I have easily had an average daily reading quota of 2-300 pages. Probably more since it doesn't take into account online research/library raids, etc. That is why I, at least, cannot combine a part-time job with this. Your mileage may vary. The MAPH is what you make of it. I'm told that about 118 were admitted out of a total of nearly 900 (which includes PhD redirects and direct-MAPH applications). Is it selective? Clearly, since it is about 1 for every 9. Is it hyper-selective? No. Is it worth it? Depends on your motivation. I've grouped the people around me into two categories. One includes people who don't really have a clue but they have money. They're lured by the Chicago cachet. There's a guy in my film track who has absolutely no clue what he wants to do later, yet he's asked a superstar to be his advisor. I have no clue why he's even here. He finds theory boring, he rarely has any contributions, and sleeps in half the classes. Then there's another chap who's more into documentaries (making them)...well hello, Chicago isn't that interested in -making- film. And then there's a friend of mine and myself, who are hell-bent on theory and analysis and what not, and I would say we're the only two in the CMS track who are really set on a PhD after this. This is the second group. People who are able to exploit the MAPH for its great opportunities for cross-disciplinary work and work with leading scholars (who are surprisingly approachable) to their benefit. The Core course and the weekly social hours do foster a great sense of community, whether academic or otherwise. Yes, Chicago has its parties too. The vast majority of people here seem to be in English or Philosophy. CMS has just 5 people. Surprisingly low, but hey, less competition... I understand there is no bias (at least in CMS) against MAPH applications to Chicago's PhD. They try to take at least one from the MAPH and the rest from outside. So if you're planning on a PhD and you just don't have the credibility yet, or if you want to test the waters first, then the MAPH could be the single-best shot of mojo you need. We really do more work than the first/second year PhDs, because we're the ones covering a standard two-year program's worth in a single year, while they..have more time. Survive and best the intensity, and live on Ramen (or learn to cook, you scrubs), and the MAPH can get you into those dreamy top-5 programs.

Not necessarily. Some places are biased toward BA-only candidates because of a notion that they can more effectively mould/shape the BA into a PhD, but this is infrequent. Usually this anti-bias exists with regard to internal applicants, ie, a UChicago undergraduate applying to UChicago's CMS department will not be very well received unless they're exceptional (this is what I've heard from several faculty members). Beyond that, though, I'm not aware of an anti-MA bias per se. I'm currently at Chicago, in the MAPH program. I intend to apply to PhD programs for fall '12, and I sure hope my AM that I'll have already earned won't hurt me.

I wanted to throw in my 2 cents here. I'm currently at the University of Chicago's MAPH program, Cinema and Media Studies track. Now the MAPH has a shifting perception depending on who you talk to, but based on my first quarter's experience, I can say that it is super-intense. In the CMS track we currently have 5 MAPHers and the usual PhDs. We're doing exactly the same coursework, except we're asked to do a lot more than the first-year PhDs since we are, essentially, attempting to cover a standard two-year duration AM within our single year of the MAPH. Chicago does have some of the foremost film scholars today, and based on what I've gleaned from them, I'm told that there is no real preference with regard to external applicants. Chicago tends to look at the MAPH group as well as the external applicants--there's no solid benefit here except that they (obviously) know an internal applicant better. I'm also told that Chicago encourages their undergraduates to go elsewhere for graduate studies. As far as my situation goes, I had a sub-3.0 GPA, despite being pretty damned good at what I do--it was a question of poor advising, culture shock, and lack of focus for my initial years. I find myself gaining a huge bonus from the MAPH because I get to do my thesis under people like Tom Gunning/Miriam Hansen/etc., and I'm doing very well presently. I won't have any publications or research conferences (well, it's unlikely at best) by the time I apply for the 2012 fall admission (the MAPH finishes in June '11). They're not a dealbreaker. Very few PhD admits already possess academic chops like conferences/publication. In conversations with current PhDs, I found only two who had any sort of publications (one had an undergraduate essay included in an anthology on women's studies topics, and another had a paper presented at Pittsburgh). I'm also told that my lack of language proficiency doesn't matter, since one can always take courses once in the PhD and then take the proficiency exams when ready. What -really- matters is fit and research interests. Chicago is well-known for its historicist/aesthetic bent. We're not big on 'new media', radio/tv, etc. Yet, our most recent hire in the department is a post-doc whose field is new media. So there are shifting tendencies which need to be kept in mind during applications. Please remember that all of this is Chicago-centric. I would expect similar stories/variations across different universities.

I don't have personal experience with NYU, however, I will add that I've often heard about NYU's notorious stinginess regarding financial aid. I'm in cinema studies, so that's pretty close to what you might be going for.

Not to crash your thread, but are you? Reason I ask is I'm highly interested in the MCM program at Brown. Please feel free to PM me if you will be attending -- I have several questions.

Wow. Expect every Jack and his mom to achieve a perfect score '11 onward. As if admissions weren't warped enough, now a former standard gets dumbed down as well. Apologies if I sound too harsh, but this simply comes across as pandering to the masses and lowering the threshold -- perhaps to produce some illusory appearance of more people doing 'well' ?

Editor at PR Newswire, a financial news service firm. It's a pretty decent job to be honest. Overnight shift, four days a week, pay bonuses. I'm glad I'm leaving now, though. The work itself is undeniably monotonous, clients often involve big corporate names who are demanding and cranky, and it's just personally stultifying.

Grad Hopeful: Thanks! That's much more like it. I must admit that the issue of the I-20 is something that came up on a very preliminary basis, and I didn't actually get much useful information from Chase since all I ever got to speak with were your basic cust. serv. reps. I shall indeed be speaking with the Office of International Affairs as well as with Student Loan Administration and attempt to coordinate communications between them and Chase. I really don't think this is a major issue -- seems more like a question of proper channel communications. Will keep you updated.

It doesn't quite work that way since Chase will be partnering with UChicago and disburse the loan funds directly through them. Also, not sure how my I-20 showing self-financing helps, when it comes time to go through with the loan application.

Quick stats: I completed my BA from a US institution and have been working on the Optional Practical Training program since then (last summer onward). Legalese-wise, I'm fine. Also have an eligible co-signer who is working with me on my application to a Chase private loan. It isn't for a huge amount however I do need it to satisfactorily finance my MAPH at UChicago. International students receive a document called the I-20. It sets out the program, institution, duration, cost of attendance, and other details such as would satisfy govt. requirements. >>Chase requires I-20 during application process. >>UofC cannot issue I-20 until evidence of funding is shown >>>>Frakking Catch-22. I can't be the only international student caught in this loop. I've spoken to UC International Affairs and am supposed to hear back from them tomorrow. Lady I spoke to was quite helpful and said she'd communicate with the financial office and clarify the matter. Anyone else facing this weird situation? How about any other international people who are entering in the coming Fall and who may be taking out any sort of non US Federal loan? I know international banks likely require the I-20 -- mine did back during undergrad. Advice, advice, bring it on, please.

Not to gatecrash the religion board, but I'll be joining you at gorgeous UC in the Fall. MAPH, Cinema and Media Studies.

..Oy, nobody else? o_O

I apologise if this isn't the appropriate section (couldn't find any other place...). However, are there any others visiting the University of Chicago on April 11th+12th for their admitted student visit? I'll be travelling from New Mexico, hoping to reach there on the 10th actually. Would be nice to meet others!

The admissions committee has already carefully evaluated your application, and clearly they have reached their conclusion -- which is to place you on the waitlist. This may not be any actual drawback in your application, but rather simply a reflection on the quality of those accepted. It isn't something you can readily impact. I would say keep up communications, express your passion and interest/dedication to your top choice, and IF there has been any update that materially changes your profile as an applicant (a recent publication, an award, etc.) then let them know. Otherwise, I don't think there's much to be gained by giving them additional material to evaluate.