Swagato

Who is making these efforts? University administration, or faculty and students? My impression is that such PR efforts are largely initiated by the former. The only times I hear the latter talk about rankings are if they're NRC, or Leiter-style.

FYI the Cinema department at Chicago just made three-four star hires. Enjoy!

Wow. No tuition waiver would've been an instant "No" for me. Spring course registration already? But Fall's only just started!

Coming from quarter to semester, I actually find the semester system practically laid-back! The quarter system, at least at Chicago, kept your nose to it. Some might find it unduly stressful, but I appreciated the prolonged engagement. I'm yet to complete a full year here, but I find a lot more room to breathe.

Here's the thing, though. None of these requirements are hard and fast, at least in the humanities. There are so many factors that go into consideration. For each of us who was accepted, there was no one "killer" aspect that worked; rather I think it was the overall profile. I know applicants who've presented the typical "all-star" profiles and have been accepted. And then some who were not accepted. And then I know others with distinctly more 'mixed' profiles who nonetheless were accepted (all of these are to leading departments). So, really, don't put so much weight on "basic requirements." It really is the entire package that counts. On the other hand, obviously, if your profile falls egregiously below the general make-up of the department, then you should perhaps adjust your expectations.

To the best of my knowledge, Yale and Harvard have a limit to reapplications. You can apply three times, but no more.

I'd contradict this, actually. Unless the public institution is a Berkeley or something along those lines, then funding will likely be more restricted than a private institution. This is very discipline-specific, but generally speaking a private institution has more freedom in matters of funding and endowments, whereas the public institution is ever-beholden to state bureaucracy.

First week has been terrific. Very warm welcome extended not just to me but to my spouse by both departments that I'm a member of, facilities/resources almost overwhelming, classes as stimulating and interesting as I imagined, colleagues warm and friendly, etc. But my campus is also surprisingly large and one of my go-to buildings is inconveniently out of the way. May upgrade to a current-gen Air around winter. Other than that I couldn't be happier.

Reading this will help, perhaps. http://philosophy.uchicago.edu/prospective/admissions.html

2 days? I've received responses after 3 months. I would say just email the people you wish to, with no expectations whatsoever. I do not believe that gaining faculty interest ahead of time plays any significant role for us in the humanities. Project and grant funding is not nearly as crucial to our admission decisions as it is in the sciences. Is it worth establishing contact? Well, it may be nice to, and if you can get to a point where a professor wishes to read your present work etc., that's certainly a good thing.

Linen shirt, lightweight chinos, linen blazer. Or add in seersucker somewhere. It's magical.

^ What they said. Bear also in mind the difficulty faced by job-hunters even from 'elite' programs known for very good post-PhD placement. And IMO age definitely plays a role, debates over that issue notwithstanding. A tenure offer is a major, major investment and involves deliberations that go way beyond just matters of scholarship. And if you're not seeking tenure, then there are legions of under-employed, younger, PhDs breathlessly waiting to snap up an offer. You seem like you've established yourself fairly well in life. There are many ways to remain involved with research and publication (as an independent scholar, say, or more professionally by working at university or academic presses). Is it really worth the big gamble, involving so many unknowable, random factors?

Okay, so. 1. I pulled numbers from the database. The following conditions were used: no summer funding was included; if stipends varied over the course (eg., 1st year $X, 2nd-5th year $Y) then the average was taken; all numbers were rounded off to the lowest whole number. No MA programs were counted. It's crude and we can probably fine-tune it, but it's unnecessary (IMO). The average for that spreadsheet comes to $18,751.69. This includes a wide range of programs, from the ones at so-called Flyover State to HYPS-tier institutions. 2. Most of the leading programs tend to offer good funding. And, I do apologise if this sounds rough, but (IMO) it is self-evident that we should not pursue graduate studies if we do not make it to a leading program. By leading program I don't mean just the big-name ones, but rather the ones that best fit you and are worth going to. At least, we should not pursue it with any other intent than that of a passion project. 3. But, as jazzy notes, even high funding doesn't offset high living costs. Given my experience in Chicago, I think Northwestern's funding package is actually surprisingly generous compared to, say, Berkeley's or even Yale's, simply because of the cost of living in those two places. So yes, there'll be adjustments. But my main grouse was that we should stop perpetuating the popular myth of graduate student penury. We aren't in this for riches, but neither are we living on scraps. I guess it just gets tiring, after a point, reading the nth throwaway claim about graduate student disenfranchisement and debasement. We're really not that poorly off, considering everything we get to do.

This idea of graduate life = poverty is really pernicious and has got to go. Obviously, nobody's going to give you $50,000/year. But stipends range from $20,000 to $28,000/year in my fields and there are a plethora of opportunities for additional income. I really don't think that's a condemnation to living like a pauper.

I can only respond anecdotally. My program is a combined PhD, and I applied to Film Studies program although my research interests do involve ample art historical material. Out of the six admits this year, I don't think anyone comes directly from the BA. For the History of Art admits (11 or 12) I'm also certain that the vast majority already hold MAs. For Film Studies admits at other programs, I'm willing to bet it is the same story. This was my second application cycle after earning my MA; my sense was that there is a definite and growing trend toward admitting MA-holders to PhD programs across the humanities. I also think there is a good logic here as doing an MA means you are more likely to enter the PhD program with a clearer sense of your research interests, a better understanding of academia as a profession, and just a greater professionalisation overall. This is all good news for PhD programs eager to control time-to-degree, post-graduation outcomes, etc.

Reviewing my SOP, I find that I spent 219 (out of 960) words on summarising not only the genealogy of my proposed doctoral interests, but also the paper I used as my writing sample and its implications for future work, as well as how it deviated from existing scholarship on the topic. I didn't aim for this, but I feel (in retrospect) that my SOP did include my writing sample in a very organic fashion, showing clearly the evolution of my interests and work, as well as how a PhD program could help develop it further.

Amazon? Abebooks is almost guaranteed to undercut Amazon.

Page seems to be working, but perhaps PIN generation etc. may take a few more days. Surely, it is far too early for anyone to apply. My orientation hasn't even begun!

Well, damn. It's unusual to be able to repaint as a renter (at least in my experience). You're not renting with MAC, though, right? And I can't claim to love Chicago pizza that much, unfortunately...it's just too bloody stuffed (which, I know, is sort of the point)...

Paint swatches? They'll let you repaint your walls? Things are gearing up for me here in New Haven; orientation begins next Monday, I have a slew of GSAS and departmental events/sessions lined up, meetings with both DGSs, and what not... And I recently got a proposal accepted to the Society of Cinema and Media Studies conference in Seattle next year, so that was a nice start to life in New Haven.

I believe it'd be worth your while to consider MA programs first. 1. It's highly inadvisable to consider a PhD in English or Am St unless you're aiming for top-tier programs. This is less a question of elitism and more a question of safeguarding your future. Given the difficult academic job market, graduates from top-notch programs already apply in droves to all the prime jobs, and then some. Your application from Flyover State will not do you any favours there, but the backing of a powerful department might. 2. Aforementioned top-tier programs admit maybe 2-5% of all applicants. Accordingly, yours has to be compelling enough that you can squeeze into that small window. Without a background in English or Am St, and especially if you're not coming from a renowned institution (i.e. have studied under names that are well-recognised in the field), you will have a difficult time. These comments aren't meant to discourage you but rather to quickly highlight some patterns I, and no doubt many others here, have noticed. An MA program at a top institution can go far in boosting your eventual PhD application.

A few thoughts from a two-time applicant: 1. I'd be wary of dismissing Berkeley due to budget cuts. Indeed, I do not know that fellowships are "rare;" last year I believe they admitted 4-5, presumably all with quite good funding packages. This year, they probably admitted similar numbers, and I didn't hear any complaints about poor funding. I'd investigate it in more detail. 2. Harvard recently lost D. N. Rodowick to UChicago. This is important because Rodowick was a crucial figure at Harvard's Visual and Environmental Studies program, and indeed the Film Studies PhD program. Their departments are very interdisciplinary, so I'm sure there were overlaps. More importantly, Rodowick was Director of the Carpenter Center. In any case, this is something to bear in mind. 3. Most people I knew applied to more than 5 places, simply because admissions are rather brutal. Chicago, Brown, Berkeley, Yale, etc. all admit around 3-4. They all usually get in excess of 100-150 applications. But, if you're convinced there's a brilliant fit to fewer places, then it may make sense to apply to those fewer places. 4. UChicago, after some star hires very recently, presently has almost indisputably the most powerful department for Film and Media Studies. Fit is important to unbelievable levels. It's also something you may not have much control over.

While this is one side, the other side is that most of the faculty at "leading" departments do come from the top programs around. And given the straitened state of the job market, it's much more likely that a power committee and a "name" program will carry you further (assuming, of course, that your research and work are worth noticing), than will going to a middling program. So if we're speaking to would-be PhD applicants, it's worth pointing this out.

It's less the rigour and more the sheer speed of it that took me by surprise. A 3 week shopping period in an 11 week term can be very tricky.

Enjoy it now. When quarter begins, we semester-ians will be the ones smirking at you.