Sparky

Wait. Going to visit one's parents for Christmas is unprofessional? I mean, agood chunk of people here didn't go home for Thanksgiving, mostly people who would have to fly or who have spouses & even kids in town, but I think just about everyone leaves for a least *some* of winter break...

On the database 'Dissertation Full Text & Abstracts," or whatever it's called, look up a recent dissertation either in film studies or on whatever topic you're researching. Most dissertations (though unfortunately not all) have a very comprehensive literature review near the beginning. It's a great way to get quick look at the longer history of scholarship as well as the most important recent works. You could also look through the programs for recent conferences in your field and try to get an idea of what people are using, or at least what theories are shaping their arguments, via paper titles. It'll at least give you a direction to channel your research. As far as science research developments go, you could do worse than to follow SciTechDaily and eScienceNews. Very understandable, even for people whose relationship to theoretical physics is rather like that of

Ja genau. (Oops...broke the rule...)

(Not a "memoir" per se, but...) In German, this would be easier.

I PM'ed you.

As far as teaching interests go...I was going to say something more like, if your research interest has something to do with, say, the Nibelungenlied, you could talk about how you are excited for the opportunity to teach medieval literature in general, poetry traditions, and perhaps courses in authors' use of historical traditions as source material. And if you are applying for foreign language, it might be good* to mention that you might enjoy the chance to teach an introductory course, especially if you've done some work in tutoring or whatever and can say something like, "It was thrilling to watch Student Z not just conquer Latin conjugation but also be inspired to add a classics minor--and to know that I played a role in her inspiration. I would welcome the opportunity to motivate beginning students to become Greek and Latin scholars." * says one language professor I know, but I realize that one anecdatum does not a representative data sample make

Not that I know anything about psychology admissions, but I don't see why that wouldn't work! Especially if intervention programs fit right in with your research interest. If you're really, really worried, one thing you could do is contact the department (contact person is likely listed on the dept website) and ask what recent graduates have done with their degrees. This is a standard question and won't look like you're fishing around for SOP brownie points. (ETA: check the dept website first to see if the info is posted; in which case, don't ask ). As for it sounding stilted, pleading, braggy, and otherwise college admission-y: (almost) everyone thinks their own SOP reads like that. You do psych--you know about "we are our own worst critics," right? That applies four times over with SOP writing.

One of the main reasons I'm studying history, instead of religion or literature (what I do incorporates all three) is that it is the only subject I would be--really--happy and satisfied teaching in high school. In fact, there are days when that is Plan A. Plan C, of course, is to marry rich.

(tl;dr - 1. Cite the NRSV, not the D-R, unless you are writing about people who used the D-R. 2. If your paper is medieval, cite the Latin instead. 3. You don't put the Bible in "works cited" unless you are using a funky translation, i.e. not NRSV, KJV, Vulgate, or for the Old Testament Apocrypha, the Oxford Annotated edition. Then it goes alphabetically under whatever it says on the title page; no author. If the title is something like "The Holy Bible," you put the name of the translation after that. Then the editor/translator/translating group, publisher, etc, like a regular book. 4. In in-text citation, the first time you cite the Bible, you use the name of the translation, then book, chapter verse. If you are using the same translation, after that you just cite book, chapter, verse. 5. For book titles, you use the standard four-letter abbreviation. Expanded: The standard English translation for scholarly work is the NRSV, unless you are writing about a historical context (early America, late nineteenth century Holiness, etc) that used a different translation. Then you use what those people used. This is to say: unless you are studying post-Tridentine Catholic liturgy, or need an almost-literal translation of the Vulgate, you probably shouldn't be citing Douay-Rheims. (You're a medievalist--you know something about the accuracy of the Vulgate--and thus D-R. ) If your paper is medieval, there is a totally awesome D-R/Vulgate side-by-side comparison here. (It's a pretty vulgar Vulgate, not the critical edition, but I haven't had any protests from profs when quoting it b/c I am too lazy to walk to my bookshelf! And anyway, the Vulgate itself was pretty corrupt in the Middle Ages, so the lack of critical edition really doesn't matter that much). Use the Latin; unless, again, you are writing about a specific reading community that had access to a vernacular Bible. The Unbound Bible has the NRSV as one of the translations available for side-by-side comparison by verse (as well as the KJV and the Douay-Rheims, FWIW). ETA: Dude, Google "mla format bible." Purdue's site is pretty good, though incomplete. ETAA: This may be the only time in my life I ever make use of my theology degrees.

It's finals. The chances of the admissions committee meeting before next (calendar) year are almost nil for humanities and social science students. Heck, last year one of my recommenders missed a [ i]January deadline by a week and a half. I am now at that school. (And yes, I posted last year with the same panicked question.) Contact your letter writer and get on her case! (ETA: Um, politely. )

I just want to wish everyone the best of luck! I'm rooting for y'all!

For my MA: Applying, deciding, waiting (moving N/A) For my PhD: Waiting, waiting, waiting, applying, moving (decision N/A - only one funded offer, but to my top choice by far) ETA: I'm also curious as to what everyone thought was the worst part of the application. Universally, SOP? Or did anyone cagematch their writing sample (like for my MA application), or have an interview, um, extravaganza?

Oh, sorry! My school logs me in automatically, so I had no idea. Here you go:

Chicago on ellipses in poetry

Not very. Are there any overlaps at all? Like, are you interested in economic history in colonial America, and your paper is on the silk trade in early modern Paris or whatever? What about methodology? Those are significant, too, although I still don't think that it would count against you. I don't know what you focus on, but one thing that *might* be a *minor* concern is, if you are applying as a medievalist (I assume ancient history as well), the Powers That Be typically like to see that you can work with Latin in your paper. So if you sent something on, say, modern China you can see how there might be issues there. (I don't know anything about language requirements/preferences with respect to non-European history, sorry). But I guess if your application attests to language ability in other ways--namely, coursework--it's not a problem. At any rate, even if it's microscopic points off for not being within your topic, it's not worth the risk of submitting anything but your best work.

Well hey, I've been there (except I emphatically did not go to an "excellent top ranked undergraduate program"). If you think your LORs might be weak one thing you might want to consider is applying to master's programs next year (or whenever). That will first of all give you the chance to make sure that what you want to study is what you do, in fact, want to study, but it will also give you the opportunity to get better, more detailed LORs for when you apply to PhD programs. But then again, part of the reason I went that route was because I was too lazy to spend a year building/rebuilding relationships with former profs. So you are already a step up, I suppose. And modernity is right--most of the people here are, in general, terrifyingly good at what they do and have been very motivated for PhD work for a long time. And then there are those of us who just squeezed our eyes shut and prayed really, really hard.

By "general reception," I basically meant "find out if the arguments of the person you're mentioning have been 100% disproven by the entire rest of the field", not "pick someone to make yourself sound cool or to help you fake a fit with a department." If the school is truly a good fit for you, you won't have to worry about naming someone "unpopular" with that particular faculty, b/c you would only have sought out departments supportive of that particular theoretical approach-ish.

Hm, interesting, I received the opposite advice--mention a couple of scholars whose work has influenced mine. I think, however, it's not an irreconcilable difference: the point is to show that you are aware of the current state of your field, and that you have identified a niche that you will fill. Mentioning a couple of works/scholars that you might use as a basis or that you strongly disagree with is simply one way of doing that. But, of course, if you do mention specific people or even schools of thought, you should be aware of their general reception in your field. But y'all knew that.

I have hazel eyes. I have always had hazel eyes. Who knows? I might wake up one morning and they could have spontaneously turned bright orange overnight! ...But it would be a really crappy thing on which to base my future happiness and ability to afford food. Seriously, though, has no professor had this talk with you yet?

Gotcha. That's why I asked if it was a one-year program; it would be awkward if you made it through three semesters' worth of classes and only dredged one new LOR! Absolutely send your undergrad profs your new SOP. You might want to ask before sending them your new writing sample, but it's probably a good idea. After all, if your current work is heels and heads above your old, maybe those profs will do a little, um, 'hindsight is 20/10' action ("Wow, I didn't remember that fj20 used alliteration so beautifully! And dang, look how well ze is able to tie disparate arguments together! I'd forgotten that!" Well, one can hope).

Only one recommender from your MA? Really? Is it a one-year program? Unless the profs from your undergrad are literature rock stars in your field, I think the adcom might like to hear more from your master's-level profs.

It didn't seem to hurt. (There was only one school where I was not able to submit the app without filling in at least one blank; this is the school I currently attend ).I believe my thought process at the time was less "Will this hurt my chances" and more "who do you think you are?!".

It's a self-check for the program--they want to know which schools they are considered similar to/equal with (or, alternately, which schools they serve as a "backup" to, insofar as there are "backup" schools in PhD admissions). The general claim is that whatever you write down has zero impact on the outcome. I would like to believe that. But on the other hand, I definitely went the "write down only this school" route.

In general, it is easier to get a job in a particular discipline if your PhD is directly in that discipline, not just a concentration through an interdisciplinary program. However, job placement rates for interdisciplinary programs are very, very program-dependent. Find out from the American Culture people what percentage of their graduates who concentrate in history end up with TT jobs (or whatever your goal may be). I'm not an Americanist, but I'm in a different sort of interdisciplinary program focusing on history. As far as admission to the program goes, if you do decide to apply, make sure your SOP sells the interdisciplinary nature of your research topic. How will the ability to draw on multiple fields aid your research? Mentioning professors from more than one traditional discipline is always a bonus, too.