Sparky

It is NOT necessary to submit the application first. The first time a program gets an admissions-related document with your name on it, they will open a file for you. Even if it's random unannounced GRE scores. I had no trouble with this when I applied. However, if you want to ease your mind, you could first *start* an online application at each school. That seems 'safer' to me (emotionally). And also, you access the LOR forms to give your profs *through* the online app. So, the school is already very sure you exist and are applying by the time the LORs arrive!

Thousands and thousands and thousands of applicants before you have done it just fine. Are you really *that special*, that YOU are the ONE person who can't be compressed into 500 words? If you really do think you are that Special Snowflake, those 300 extra words better be damn good. (The upside is, those same thousands and thousands and thousands of applicants have complained about it bitterly, too. )

Don't. Unless you are coming out of the top program in your field, getting your BA (B*), MA, and PhD from the same department will make getting a job much harder. Job search committees tend to view such an application with the question, "But can this person succeed in a different environment?" in the front of their minds. Of course there are always stories of the person who beat the system, but do you really want to make crappy odds even crappier for yourself?

Who are your favorite scholars in your subfield? Who has written the major secondary works on Victorian picture books? Whose work have you cited in *all* your papers? Find out where they teach. Look at the lit reviews at the beginning of the articles you cite, or in the footnotes. Where do *those* scholars teach?

Well, not all your classes are going to consist of all the first-year students! People specialize in different things--if you want to concentrate in, say, medieval literature, you might take a course in 20th century fiction, but probably not as many courses as someone who is actually specializing in 20th century fiction. Also, there is the matter of cross-listed classes (e.g. have undergraduates as well as grad students; or are open to students in multiple departments). And you'll have classes with students in all sorts of years, not just first-year PhD students. There isn't the same type of I-II-III progression like in a lot of sciences--you don't need to take "Chaucer & Death" as a prerequisite to "Langland & Apocalpyticism." And so forth. This does vary based on program, and I don't know what it's like in sciences. But in humanities depts generally, that's how it is. ETA: You don't sound stupid. Don't worry.

Ah. Class size means, to me, "average number of bodies in the classroom," not cohort size/number of incoming students. Actually, the profs tended to think I meant cohort size as well. ETA: Good resource with further question suggestions, and also links to other lists of questions

I did this with profs at several programs. Including the one I now attend. Don't mention your SOP at all, or (unless the prof asks, I guess) your GPA, GRE, anything like that. Especially not to ask for proofreading. Mostly I let the prof guide the conversation. Most of them had a few questions for me along the lines of how I became interested in my topic, what I thought about a couple of recent books in my subfield, what my language abilities are (this may not be relevant for you), etc. And then of course the dreaded "Do you have any questions." The general guideline here is not to ask things that are answered on the program website. My major question--and this really did play a large role in my decision of where to apply in the first place--concerned average class size. I thrive on class discussions, so I wanted to make sure all the classes were seminar-style instead of lecture. That also, of course, gave me the chance to let the prof know I am a very enthusiastic and engaged students, without saying it in so many words. What is important to you may be different, however. Maybe you have questions about the advisor's style--how many times does s/he meet with advisees? Is there a good sense of community within the program? Is the guest speaker series as fantastic as the website makes it seem? What are the library resources like in your subfield? Will you have to order nearly every book from Interlibrary Loan, or are there two copies of all the major primary and secondary texts ripe to be plucked off the shelf? Are there any students there who do what you do? Are there opportunities for interdisciplinary work? (If it is an interdisciplinary program, how does the application work? Should you specify in your SOP which discipline you intend to concentrate in? I realize that contradicts my categorical don't-mention-the-SOP statement above. I think the way I phrased it was something like, "So, how do you declare which specific discipline is your focus? Is there a formal procedure?" Profs are not [usually] oblivion on wheels; the ones I spoke to for interdisciplinary programs all told me to mention it in my SOP but that it was certainly not official and students are not trapped into what they indicate on the application). One professor did ask me about secondary interests, but none of the others broached the issue. So neither did I. Good luck!

The job market in history sucks. On the other hand, the number one message of the AAR this year is/was, the job market in religion sucks. Especially the job market in history of Christianity. I guess it comes down to two things: first, if you can't get a tenure-track job at a 'regular' university/college, would you rather teach at a seminary or a high school? Although keep in mind that as a medievalist, your pool of places to work will be smaller--Protestant seminaries are not so much with the medieval church. Second, and more importantly: the way "they" generally say to pick a subject is, would you rather teach Intro to World Civ (/US history/etc) or Intro to Theology? Do you see yourself teaching Theological Anthropology in Early Modern America, or Conquest & Colonialism? Because when you teach, you won't just be teaching in what you research. You'll be lucky, in fact, if you ever get to teach a class in something close. That's the main reason I switched from religion (MA) to history (PhD)--I'm a medievalist as well, and while I my specific topic, I cannot for the life of me conceive of teaching a course on Aquinas and Scotus. Something else to consider: apply to some history programs, and some religion programs, and see what shakes out (this is what I did; I'm very happy i ended up in a history/interdisciplinary dept). There are fewer good religion programs than good history programs--which is one of the reasons religion/theology people tend to apply to fewer schools--so applying to history programs as well gives you a better shot. And also, I PM'ed you.

It's not usual, but it's very much not unheard of to invent your own last name! I actually know quite a few people who have done it, whether on immigration to the U.S., to escape (psychologically and, well, linguistically) abusive or simply disliked parents, or--as in your case--negotiating the same-name-as-kid desire in a non-sexist (and non-heterosexist) way. And think of all the famous people who have changed their last names, whether it's just a 'stage name' or they actually did it legally. I don't have any advice on the publication issue, though. You could always use your future last name and call it a pen name?

My understanding is that switching to another program after an MA (i.e. applying all over again, but with an MA--there don't seem to be separate "transfer" admissions) is rarer in the humanities than sciences, but is not out of the question. The first thing you will want to do is talk to your advisor, or the dept's grad director, and let her know your concerns. I would not be surprised if the school makes an effort to accomodate you rather than squeezing you out, so to speak. It would probably be a good idea to take them up on this offer, b/c leaving to go to another school can be awkward. What happens if you don't get in anywhere? Because you can't keep this a secret--given that you are leaving a PhD program mid-course, you will need your letters of recommendation to come from Auburn. And while it may be a case that your interests have shifted radically--like, you are now certain you want to study modern Europe whereas every professor at Auburn specializes in early modern Asian history, in which case yeah, apply afresh--keep in mind that your research does not have to, and probably *should* not, match even your advisor's too closely. You don't want to be an academic clone, after all. ( ) As far as admissions chances go--it doesn't seem to matter so much where you come from, except in the case of having LORs from a really superstar prof. It will come down largely to your SOP, writing sample, and the letters. I have no way of knowing for sure, but my guess is that the SOP would be extremely critical in your case, b/c you would have to make a good case why, even though you were sure Auburn was the right place (you accepted their offer => you were sure, whether or not this is actually the case) for you and now realize you are wrong, you know that you aren't wrong this time, i.e. that you won't flake out and leave. On the plus side, likely your writing has improved. Your writing sample will probably be held to higher standards, but I happen to think a previous MA is often an advantage--especially in the case of language study, if that is relevant to your subfield. Take all of this advice with several tablespoons of salt, however.

Well, I don't think you will get rejected for getting this wrong. But for what it's worth: Standard practice seems to be, write out the name fully the first time, and after that it's okay to abbreviate within reason. I wouldn't go to acronyms, generally (e.g. UIUC), but switching from "University of Illinois - Urbana-Champaign" to "Illinois" the second time (and so on) is basically what I did. Definitely not "U. Illinois," though--if you have part of a word, write it out. But again--this is not something huge to stress about.

Well, why do you think transferring is not just important, but necessary? If you transfer now, that means you're applying to a school with less than 3 full months at your current one. In other words, the program that you applied to and whose offer you accepted, you couldn't even give a full semester's chance? That's going to make you look flaky, and like you weren't really prepared for grad school. Yale Div will be wondering whether you will do the same thing to them. And you might destroy your relationships at your current school in the process. An MTS from BC is nothing to sniff at. You say you're happy? Get through the two years, then go apply to Yale for the PhD.

Okay, honest opinion? I think it's your first semester in graduate school. The work is hard and the tasks you do in lab are the same three basic things over and over and most of the time they don't work out and your schedule is so packed you don't have time to be you. (My roommate is a first-year bio student. But if you substitute "Latin translation" for "lab," that's my life as well). I'm guessing that a lot of it has to do with wanting time to be you b/c you mention applying to MFA programs. It sounds like you are looking for a "comfortable" place, still insulated from the Real World but with a much freer schedule than you have now. If you want to be a writer, write. Set yourself 30 minutes a day, or, heck, 15!--and make a vow that you *will* write for those 15 minutes every day. (Except maybe during finals, you have 15 minutes to spare. Promise.) Or you might consider setting yourself a word limit--"I will write 100 words every day." If you have the discipline to make yourself write even through a year of hellish lab work, you probably have the discipline to be a professional writer. There is very little conflict between pursuing your dream as a writer, and having another job. Probably 90-99% of professional writers have a day job. This is not to say that the MFA creative writing is worthless. Not at all! But it's also not magic, and it seems like you kind of want it to be. I'm not a huge fan of this author, but you might want to check out The Freelancer's Survival Guide. I'm thinking especially of this, in light of your desire to pursue an MFA, in graduate school, instead of just dropping out to chase your dream:

They don't; it's an MA theology. But they reworked their MA program a couple of years ago so that it's pretty much the same as an MTS.

I PMed you.

Duke (Div) has a fairly good reputation for funding their MDiv students; you might want to check them out. A good chunk of the PhD students at my previous (MA historical theology) school were from Duke MDiv or MTS, and they all had a very solid (and intimidating! at least to me) historical grounding. The other posters are right that GRE scores are often used to allocate university-wide fellowships; this doesn't tend to carry over into admissions, which are usually done on a departmental level. And on a non-admissions related note, I encourage you to start working with a tutor in one of those languages, or at least to take a grad-level intro class this summer! It's always good to get as much language work out of the way as soon as possible, so during school semesters you can concentrate on the fun things.

Um...that's not what the schools themselves say. Most of them deemphasize the GRE, or don't require it, or just started requiring it a couple of years ago and still don't really consider it. But coffeekid is right that undergraduate record doesn't mean so much for grad school admission. Mostly it's a matter of, GPA and GRE *qualify* you, then your SOP and letters of recommendation get you in. You minored in classics; do you have either Latin or Greek? (Or, I suppose, Hebrew?) And finally: those are all master's-level programs, right? In most fields of religion, it's nearly impossible to get into a top PhD program without at least one master's degree.

A passive verb in the first sentence? For an English program? It feels...heavy. It's about your students and the class, not you. "The students were encouraged"? Not "I encouraged my students"? And it seems like there are a lot of unnecessary details (name of course; that you 'brainstormed' and 'researched' to come up with the idea; books that you used in the class--especially b/c Neuromancer is far outside the time frame you want to study; etc). Like padding that is itself padded. As it is written, I think you could cut the whole thing (except the last sentence, of course ), mention later in the SOP that your experience designing and teaching college classes has helped you refine your interests as you managed to get your students excited about an introductory writing course, etc., and be just fine. I do think that with a good rewrite it is salvageable. You want an exciting hook, not dry exposition. Sorry to be harsh , but--that's already 111 words. That seems like a lot to waste on an unexcitingly-worded intro.

You keep emphasizing "slow me down"--is there a particular reason you need to get your PhD as fast as possible? I understand the funding issue, but as I would assume everyone at your current school faces the same issue, doesn't the program help you secure fellowships and other funding for the remaining years?

Yes, especially if they're relevant to medieval (e.g. relevant vernacular, Latin, French, German). But keep in mind that schools *strongly* prefer documentation of language skills--use of the language in your writing sample; SAT II score, coursework, etc. I(Especially the first. If you're working with a medieval text, you should almost certainly be quoting it in its original language, or at least, the language of the earliest surviving copy. This may not be as critical for MA programs as PhD ones, which generally want you to have a solid grasp of the languages you will need). If you've been working with a tutor, perhaps you could get her to write a supplemental LOR to attest to your new language skills, or maybe you have a prof who is aware of it and could mention it in the LOR she's writing. Programs, on the whole, tend to be very suspicious of the "language auto-didact." Well, *will* it aid you? Don't force anything. But if you, say, wrote a paper for a theater class on medieval mystery plays,you can use that as evidence for your passion for the Middle Ages, and how you pursued it even in non-literature classes. Unless you can pull it off really, really well, don't try a chemistry-alchemy cutesy switchy thing. (Hmm...unless alchemy texts are your main interest?) In my SOP I pretty much ignored the fact that I have a BA in African politics. My [current] program didn't seem to mind. And about a 'mixed' record: I'm studying medieval history/lit with a whopping total of 5 classes, from four years of undergrad and two years of a master's degree, that had anything to do with the Middle Ages. Not to mention transcripts from four schools as well. So don't feel so bad.

As I said: this is a problem with/for me, not you. You owe me no apology. But I still want to emphasize that your generalization is not a totalization, which is how it came across in the first couple of posts. ETA: I'm totally in love with that second smiley. It might replace as my favorite.

You can see how the second one completely contradicts the first, right? Or else the only grad students you've ever met are from your particular program...? (I will also note that you are missing my other point: I am in a mental place such that "grad work isn't supposed to be challenging" and "grad students don't find classes that hard" mean "if you're finding it challenging, you're stupid." That is my problem, not yours. You don't have to defend yourself.)

Two of my four (!) classes have tough assignments BECAUSE the material is challenging. One of them is my favorite class and in fact it's pretty much what I want to do with my life--but it's still hard as hell. My roommate is in engineering and she is finding her program difficult as well. So please don't spout sweeping universalizations like "Grad work isn't hard." Because...for some of us, it is, and we don't need your help to feel stupid. (P.S. I know that wasn't your intention; that's why I put the funny smiley on the end. It's a reflection of my current mental-emotional statement that that's how I read your comment).

Funnier than Stewart and Colbert put together, that.

SOG25, if your entire purpose is to say "But a law degree is SO MUCH BETTER!!eleventyone!!," why are you slumming on a poli sci message board? What are you trying to accomplish here?