Swagato

We are visiting this Friday to see about a dozen places. Fortunately, several are located within the same buildings, so we won't be hopping all over the city. Definitely some good places to be had along Howe, Dwight, and Edgewood. Hopefully we will close something by mid-May or shortly afterward.

It just refers to the Carnegie rankings.

^ This post is illuminating in that it breaks down some of the details that are telegraphed by the simple numbers provided on various departmental pages regarding placement. However, it really just illustrates two things. One, it is becoming increasingly common for research-oriented programs (UNC, Chicago, etc.) are producing people who first do good postdocs before going on to other positions. Two, tenure-track placement from any department is quite unlikely to be over 50-60 percent at graduation, and (corollary) it is a much better practice to look at placement 3-5 years after graduation. I may be missing something or lacking historical knowledge here, but I'd be really impressed if there were ever a time when 70%+ of graduates from any program were going straight into tenure-track positions. Perhaps this may have been the case some 50 years ago, but even then I have my doubts. I always (that is, ever since I realised I was heading for the academic track) assumed that even if I were to graduate from a top program with a solid body of work and all other "advantages" that a top program in the field provides, I would still likely do at least one postdoc/VAP before heading into a tenure track position. My assumption, in short, was that I should find myself in a TT position within 3 years of graduation, worst case 5 (if I have to do another postdoc, but I really hope not). So from this perspective, I think TT placement rates of 50 percent are actually pretty damn good, when you consider how many PhDs graduate each year. For Film Studies, most of the top programs graduate maybe 4-6 people a year. Usually less. So you're talking about half the graduating class finding TT positions in this dismal market. I simply can't see how that is not excellent news.

Ah I see. That's a bit depressing to learn.

I may be missing something, but why would it be very difficult to cover normal living expenses with your stipend? Does it not cover summer months/is not a 12-month stipend? I honestly don't know how common it is to be able to find teaching positions in the very first summer itself. I'm hoping to make use of the language immersion program or other similar programs to seriously get my first foreign language requirement covered. Mine is a 12-month stipend and my SO will (hopefully!) have found employment by then, so I don't expect living problems for the summer.

OP, What you need to do is look around you in your areas of interest and see what's going on right now. Then, think back to the beginning--what drew you here in the first place? What drew you to your interests? Try to blend the two. On the one hand, it will not do you any good to present a perfectly archaic proposed research plan. The department doesn't benefit from any new thinking, any innovation--you just don't offer anything of interest. On the other hand, it's easy to detect when you've "tailored" your research interests to be hip to the field's jive (so to speak). So, work for a happy marriage of the two. Certain places value the "cutting edge" factor more than other. The Film Studies program at Yale values a certain approach to the field that has, on occasion, been termed "traditional." And Yale itself is a traditional/conservative institution when it comes to academia; it isn't likely to rush into something just because it's making waves. I'm grounded in early/classical film theory, film history, but I'm also quite keen on "new media" interventions. My areas of proposed research (I was given to understand) presented a fairly unique (for this admissions cycle) blend of current/future-oriented interests and a more classically-grounded approach. It's this two-pronged approach that apparently set me apart. Obviously, I did not do this intentionally (I actually didn't even know that Yale was organising a graduate conference strikingly in line with my interests just this February, just prior to admissions decisions). But, it was the right kind of research proposal directed to the right program at the right time. You (I) don't control many of these coincidences--that's why you won't get in everywhere you apply, more than likely. However, it helps if you have a good sense of what the programs value, and can construct a research proposal that is open-ended and looks toward the future while (in your case) continuing to revolve around well-worn objects. What that twist is, or how you'll discover it, is not something anyone can tell you. All this may seem gimmicky, but in reality what your objective is, is to establish that you have something to say to your field, and that people need to listen to it, because they haven't heard it before. And X program can help you present that something--hence they should take you in.

You should look at WashU and UIowa. I think Joe Loewenstein and Steven Zwicker (and maybe others) could address your book culture/print culture/digital humanties issues at Washington University in St. Louis, and I know Garrett Stewart has worked in related areas at Iowa.

So much activity. I've yet to even hear from the GSAS about transcripts, enrollment deposits, and so on.

Hmm. Well, I've sourced out most of the major articles and books written by faculty in both my departments who I think I will be seeing a lot of. I'm working through them, while keeping up supplementary readings in areas that may also be of interest. For example, I got tired of hearing so much about Speculative Realism and decided to do some introductory readings in the area. I'm unimpressed, so far, but that's another story. I'm actually kind of at a loss as to what to expect next. April 15th was just a few days ago, so I'm not sure if our department will do some sort of "official" email welcome to the cohort, or provide further instructions, etc. I actually don't even know any of the other film admits! And the history of art people I do know, are off this forum. I'm also unsure if I should reach out to faculty members over summer for anything. I mean, I don't really have anything to say right now. Saying "I want to get a head start" sounds a bit daft, since we'll all go through introductory methods/issues courses anyway, I'm sure. So...yeah, sort of not sure what else to do. Keeping up the hunt for apartments. Working on pulling together a coherent plan to get some work done on my French over summer. Browsing through past course offerings in my areas (the more I do this, the more I realise how perfect a fit Yale's joint program is for my interests at this time. It's unreal.). That's about it.

What ComeBackZinc said. I swear by Before Grain--both for wet and dry food. Fromm is also a decent option for dry food (can't speak for their wet food as I've not tried).

Difficult to comment without more knowledge about your research interests, really. Congratulations on getting off the waitlist, by the way!

For what it's worth, I've a thing for browsing the CVs of faculty members I admire (for whatever reason) or who I just find interesting. This is regardless of discipline. So, I can say I've viewed at least more than a hundred CVs of faculty members who are doing exciting research (and, accordingly, are either at major public/private research institutions, or leading SLACs). I only know of one professor who did their highest level of work at a non-"brand-name" institution.

^ My apologies for not being clearer in the first post. Yes, the Chronicle has forums. And the advice there can often be rather brutal, if nearly always well-intentioned. I sometimes feel that things get presented in an overly-negative light, but it's better to be pessimistic and have good things happen to one's self, than to over-estimate one's chances.

I invite you to head over to the CHE forums if you think anyone's been mean here.

You're headed to Chicago, good friend. It's one of the leading programs in the history of art in the country. It's as good of a hedge you can make for future employment within academia. My own journey toward the PhD has been similar. I made a bargain with myself that I'd only pursue the tenure-track dream IFF I could land a spot in one of the top programs for my field (history of art and film and visual studies). That happened, so now I'm set in this trajectory. For me, what matters most is training at a program that is among the most prominent for my areas of specialization. Equally, the program must have prominent faculty with a respectable history of excellent post-PhD placements, and there has to be a very strong research fit. I'm lucky enough that I can say "yes" to all of these qualifiers as far as Yale's program and departments go. I also think that departmental and institutional resources matter greatly. Does the institution allow access to impressive research facilities? Does it have any unique facilities that set it apart from peers? Does the department offer any unique assets to graduate work in a certain discipline? If your institution publishes some of the top journals in your field, obviously that is a very good thing. Finally, I think all of the above factors, taken together with the implicit quality of the students that would be your peer group, as well as the various doors that may open for you (conferences, publications, research grants, awards, travel fellowships, and the like)...all contribute toward building a compelling CV. It's difficult to achieve a "golden" matrix that can optimize all these factors (and some more that I've no doubt missed). But what we can do is to try and maximize each criterion. In any market, that's the best you can do.

I'd really bring this up personally with the professor, after a preliminary email requesting a short conversation regarding that course. It would also depend to a great extent on how well you know the professor teaching the course.

Damn, I didn't realise UNC placed so heavily in the South.

I don't think that's a problem at all, actually. Postdoctorals and VAP positions have become increasingly common and are actually rather a good thing. Think of it as further vetting, and in fact opportunities for the candidate to experience the waters of actual, professional, academic life on the other side before moving to the tenure-track. Plus, postdocs and VAP positions offer great opportunities for polishing up your PhD work, cranking out further work, and basically fortifying yourself for the TT slog. I'd much rather do a solid postdoc or VAP before hitting the TT (unless, that is, I am lucky enough to land a fantastic TT opportunity right out the door). Bear in mind that 7 years is a bit long. Six years should be the goal. Also, retirement...well, there's the fun of tenure. As for your question about where the placement records are--I pulled most from the department's or institution's website. For Yale I dug around a bit and other information came via personal talks.

Well, you already accepted Buffalo, so you may as well take yourself off Rochester's list. And blueberryscone: I'd strongly recommend giving it one more shot. You applied at the very highest level, and you were waitlisted at one of them. I think that's an extremely positive indicator. However, what's more important to me is that you did not apply to some equally strong places--NYU? Hopkins? Chicago? You can create a larger target pool without lowering the level.

Do you need to retake it? If you have scores that are within acceptable range (depending on the department), you may not really need to focus on the GRE. Remember that the GRE isn't exactly a major factor--not nearly as important as the writing sample, SOP, and letters.

Hah, feel free. It's no big deal if you're shut out one year--the main thing is to exploit that as an opportunity to get a handle on what you can do to improve your application, fill up gaps, and so on. I'm convinced that the broad faculty input I sought out (and received) played a huge role in helping me use the mere 7 months or so to maximum effect. And always aim high!

Don't put excessive emphasis on this day. Waitlists can and do convert after the 15th.

The thing is, dazedandbemused, HYP continue to have fairly strong placement. Yes, I have heard the allegations that the departments (in general) have a conservative flavour. But everything I've seen over the past four years or so suggest that a certain group of schools--University of Chicago, Yale, Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, NYU, Johns Hopkins, Berkeley, Duke--continue to place a sizable number of their PhD graduates (each year) to TT or postdoc positions at some very prestigious departments. I include both the upper end of SLACs and the upper end of public/private universities here. Just look at the recent data from Chicago, Princeton, Harvard, Berkeley. For Yale, roughly 75% of English graduates end up in TT positions within 5 years of graduation. My points are two: One, I think the "five years after graduating" metric is a much more realistic measure of placement. Two, I've yet to see actual evidence that the traditional "upper end" departments are no longer placing their graduates accordingly. My caveat is this: I'm driven toward the traditional tenure-track R1 faculty position, and everything I say or do is with that goal in mind, and thus tuned toward that. So, for me, that's the kind of placement that carries the most weight.

1) http://chronicle.com/blogs/conversation/2013/04/01/notes-from-an-employed-philosopher/ 2) http://chronicle.com/blogs/ticker/north-carolina-governor-wants-to-tie-university-support-to-jobs-not-liberal-arts/54787 Edit: I assumed you'd be more interested in the UNC bit since that's where you're headed, but if you're also interested in Wisconsin, just look up Scott Walker and the fun he's created for them.

Ay caramba. I walked right into that one.