Sparky

In my field, people generally use the name of the university they're currently at, and add a note at the beginning of the paper, such as "Research for this paper was conducted at [old school]. I am grateful to my colleagues there for their input" or something like that.

Also, if your school e-mail system is based on Gmail (or more to the point, if the profs writing your recs use an e-mail system based on Gmail): if you are applying to two or more schools that use the same application software--e.g. ApplyYourself--be sure the profs know the requests for LORs will likely show up as ONE thread. They're from the same sender, with the same subject line, so Gmail threads them automatically. At least, this happened with mine. There might be a way to disable it, though.

Actually, this sounds like a great question to ask the professor you're interested in working with. Especially if you end up having a phone conversation, it can be a little awkward when they're all, "So, do you have any questions?" and you say, "Uhhh..." Having something legitimate to ask is very nice. You could also say something in the initial e-mail like, "...and I have a few questions about your program. If you have time, perhaps we could talk on the phone?" or something like that.

Offering suggestions /= not being constructive. At least not on the planet I come from. Also, if the prof is on leave for the 2010-2011 school year, s/he'll be back when you would start, and might be less likely to take a sabbatical while you are there. How is that discouraging? Did the prof specifically say s/he is not taking on students for 2011-2012?

But it really sounds like what you're interested in is the history of the *language*, not necessarily *linguistics*. As for not getting a job...dude, please tell me about the sizzling job market in classical linguistics--or even classics as a whole. You will get a job by breaking new ground in your field with a snappy dissertation (if you get a job at all), and you won't do that if you're just retreading the steps of another scholar. It's your PhD that matters. Okay, maybe it would be harder to get a job at Harvard, but realistically, how many people get jobs at Harvard? If you look at department websites, you'll see that quite a few profs don't have MAs or (especially) BAs in the subject they teach. As for not having a history background...I applied to several straight-up history programs, ALL of which told me it was absolutely not a problem that my BA and MA are in a different field, as long as it's related. I vaguely recall BC's website saying something about only accepting people w/a history BA, but that's the only one I can think of. I mean, if it's what you want to do, it's what you want to do. But it doesn't sound like it is.

I really, really hope this doesn't come across as obnoxious, but...if you don't have any experience in classical linguistics, and in fact have never read so much as an introductory text, WHY on Earth do you want a graduate degree in it? To be honest, it sounds like your interest is more in classical *history, even if it's, like, 'how new words shaped Greco-Roman thought' (e.g. the introduction of esse in participle form), or how attitudes change when a text is translated from Greek to Latin, or WHEN various texts are translated, or whatever (I don't know the field--I'm sure you could come up with better examples). Have you thought about that? History MA and PhD programs don't all require a history major in undergrad.

Actually, I'm pretty sure we agree--you just put a much more 'glass is half full' spin on it. (e.g. I didn't directly say that an MEd would be helpful at teaching-oriented programs; I sort of left it hanging there by implication). Hehe, I like your strategy better, actually.

The master's in education might hurt you at schools that are very focused on producing research-oriented students (as opposed to students who are in it primarily for the *teaching* aspect of professorship). Because research => academic renown => reflects well on the program you came from. So things you might consider asking professors when you contact them is, how teaching-oriented is the program, how teaching-oriented do your students tend to be, do you encourage your students to get as much teaching experience as possible, which do YOU (the prof) value more, etc. Looking at where graduates get jobs is also--maybe--a good way to look at this; do more of them teach at smaller liberal arts schools, or are they at the major research universities? Just as a random guess, most of the "top" (i.e. famous) programs will be more research-focused, simply for the research => more renown connection. But ask around. An MA in history likely wouldn't hurt, but it is by no means necessary. Especially if you have a BA in the field already. The adcoms don't have to know your history major was actually mostly classes about medieval Japan, right? My other major advice is--apply to more schools. With so many people applying and so few spots, the cliche about admissions being a crapshoot is unfortunately true. If I had to do it again, which blessedly I don't, that's the number one thing I would do differently.

Also, if your undergrad degree is in something else AND you have a master's of some sort in theology, one thing you could look into is teaching your undergrad subject at a Catholic high school while serving as youth minister/spiritual guidance person. Several people in my old MA program were there to do this sort of thing. It makes you more marketable. Out of my BA religion "graduating class" (13 students), I think three of them are teaching high school religion with no more than a BA.

Everything...is...amazing. What's that quote again? "And it was everything that I thought it could be." Or maybe it's more. I'm still in shock that they let me in.

IMHO, this is your chance to show how the research you want to do is different from that of the professor(s) with whom you wish to work--in other words, you don't want to come off as a carbon copy of that prof. How I approached the question was, what in my background makes me a uniquely qualified candidate? If you are switching fields, this might be a good time to bring that up. Like, "The two years I worked as an electrical engineer have given me insight into the practical uses of the theories that I hope to s tudy. My combined focus on theory and application would be an asset to Program X." (worded better, of course)

What area are you looking to do the PhD in? For Christianity, you will want either French or German for a modern language (both for the PhD, but definitely have one by application time), unless you're doing something like liberation theology, in which case Spanish is critical if you are looking western Christianity and medieval or later, Latin. If patristics, you'll want both Latin and Greek; if eastern, Greek is paramount and Syriac or Coptic is a nice addition. If you're interested in Syriac Christianity, I *think* there is more secondary material out there in French than in German. I'm a medievalist (Western Eur), and between French and German it's a toss-up. Most modern stuff, probably German is more important. But get either Latin or Greek, both if possible. (If you're doing Judaism, Islam, etc. or comparative work, you'll likely need the primary source language for that religion as well--Hebrew, Arabic, etc).

You are mixing up "feminist" and "about women." It's very, very possible to study women from a non-feminist standpoint, and to study other topics (for example, how/why male archetypes change) from a feminist perspective. I mean, if it's not what rocks your cradle, don't go for it, but don't dismiss it as "not about the Human Condition." For goodness' sake, the entire point of feminism is that women are humans!

Many school doesn't give you 1-2 years solely for language prep. You are expected to shove it in during your other classwork, or do it during summers. Or, more and more, sufficient language prep is a prerequisite for admission, as schools cut their grad-level intro reading courses for budget reasons. People have mentioned this being a factor particularly at the UC schools this year. At some schools you could probably cut down on the time spent doing coursework by coming in with an MA in hand, but I suppose you would count that towards time spent to get the PhD anyway... As far as American versus other, I'm not totally sure, but people have alluded to the fact that in the UK, the PhD is purely a research degree--little or no classwork. On the other hand, it is more difficult (not impossible, but more difficult) to get a job at a US university with a PhD from the UK, due mainly to lack of classroom experience (teaching, mainly, I think). But in all honesty, I don't see what the rush is. The job market is so lousy in history these days that for a lot of us, grad school is going to be either the last time or the last time for many years that we are at a school with super-amazing resources in our subfield and multiple other people who are absolutely passionate about the same relatively obscure topic about which we are passionate. I suppose if you are getting a PhD because you already have a solid job at a high school or museum/archives, are intending to return to it, and are doing it for a pay raise or something, speed could be a factor. And I do accept that some people, particularly older students and/or those with families, might want to be out on the job market and earning more than grad student stipend wage as soon as possible. But keep in mind that the longer you are in grad school (to a point, of course--I am not arguing in favor of 10+ years), the more time your scholarship has to mature before you are on the job market. That means you have more chances to publish, more chances to present at conferences; and hopefully, the quality of your articles and scholarship will be higher as well simply due to experience. Also, some students opt to drag out the dissertation process if they cannot find a job the year they had originally planned to finish. In some accounts, this was part of what accounted for a lower number of spots this year at top programs, which had less funding to offer incoming students as they were forced to continue to offer it to students who would normally have moved on but elected to stay an extra year. The idea of grad school as a shelter from a lousy economy is, unfortunately (or fortunately), not a myth. A program with a reputation for rapid progression to the degree might not look so favorably on students attempting this, and you may find yourself out of grad school and out of a job.

1. Do not go into debt for a graduate degree in the humanities. 2. As a terminal MA student (which you are, even though you are intending to go on for your PhD), it is typically to your advantage to be at a school with no PhD program. At schools with both PhD (or MA/PhD) and terminal MA tracks, often you hear complaints from master's students about feeling ignored or left out--the faculty have a limited amount of time to spend with students, and it sort of makes sense that they would spend it more with doctoral students. 3. In most humanities fields, school name doesn't matter as much at the master's level as the work you do there. Get a 4.0 or something close to it, and produce a hyperstrong writing sample. Get glowing LORs. That's what you need. 4. A funded MA looks better on an application than an unfunded one. (The grad assistantship, whether it's TAing or RAing, goes on your CV. PhD programs will know you had funding). 5. Within the crappy English job market, literature is even more oversaturated. There are actually rhet/comp jobs available, apparently (I'm not an English person, so this is hearsay, or rather readsay), so if anything it's lit people who should be going for r/c degrees as supplements.

It's not just topic, though--it's theoretical background, methodology, and so forth. For example, does the department tend to emphasize quantitative or qualitative research? That's the type of thing that takes a little bit of work to discover. A faculty profile lists "sociology of religion" as an interest, but do they mean within religious organizations or how religious groups exist as units in society? (Sorry if that's a lousy example--I'm not in sociology). What is the department's view on interdisciplinary work? Also, keep in mind that "fit" as an admissions criterion is only a part of the "fit" that means you will be happy in the program you ultimately choose.

The two you gotta read are William Gibson's Neuromancer and Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash. A few other good authors who write cp or cp-scented SF are CJ Cherryh, Bruce Sterling, and (some) Vernor Vinge. Philip K. Dick predates the coining of the term cyberpunk, but Do Androids Dream (what Blade Runner is very, very, very loosely based on) and to a lesser extent Flow My Tears, the Policeman Said have a cyberpunk-ish flavor and are both very excellent reads. But if you read only one, read Snow Crash.

Many programs have brief profiles of their current grad students online; usually that would include previous degrees. You could skim the students' profiles from schools in which you are interested to see how many have an MA from another school. Also, just as Pamphilia noted the prevalence of MAs among comp lit people, I think it may also vary by time period--medievalists, in particular, often have a master's degree, due to language training and interdisciplinary background.

"Y'all made me an offer I can't refuse."

FSU - History of Text Technologies graduate program (according to the website, it is a concentration within the English PhD or MA) ETA: FSU has awesome medievalists, so if that's your thing (I think you mentioned Chaucer?), definitely check it out. And I'm pretty sure several of them are involved with the HTT program!

johndiligent, I like your reasoning. ~ Notre Dame said yes to me; I said yes to them. Ph.D in medieval studies. I'm totally in for TGC/South Bend Bar Night.

It is my understanding that school name/"brand name" is mostly useful for placement, right? But you specifically said that school #2 has good placement, despite not being a brand name (outside the field, at least--within public policy, it may very well be). So then presumably it would come down more to TA versus RA. Are you intending to teach afterwards? If so, I would probably lean towards the school that offered a TAship; otherwise, you really can't beat work-less fellowship years!

That assertion only makes sense if you assume there are a finite number of questions that can be asked about each text--and a set definition of what constitutes a "text." You are more likely to come up with something original if you study something that sets your soul on fire.

For a master's degree in the humanities and most social sciences, the general rule is "follow the money." Also, I don't know what the situation is in anthro, but if you look at school with top history programs, most of them are PhD only or grant MAs only on the way to PhDs. "Top" MA program is a completely different story from top department, in some--obviously not all--cases. (An important exception here is religion, where many of the schools with top PhD programs have really excellent M* programs as well. This is because, or possibly part of the reason why, religion PhD pretty much require a master's as a prerequisite for admission. But I digress). Are there people in your subfield with whom you will be working? Are they well-known? If so, it is important to get LORs from them. Supposedly, LORs from academic demiurges are weighted more heavily than ones from profs with steady but unremarkable publication records. That said, my LORs were all from profs with steady but unremarkable publication records, my MA is (will be) from a solid but by no means "top" department, and I am going to my dream school next year. Oh, and the reason I chose my MA school? I followed the money. (ETA: I turned down a couple of M* programs that have Name Value but did not give me a ridiculously awesome funding package.)

For that specific program, you might have better luck asking in the economics forum. That said: The chance that one grade in one class out of all of undergrad, unrelated to your major, will affect your chances of admission is very small. First of all, graduate history admissions (and presumably other subjects) is largely not a numbers game. The majority of successful applicants have a GPA somewhere north of 3.5 (many schools throw out something in the 3.7s as an average) and a major (history or related field) GPA around there or higher. It is not about being a 4.0/800/800/6.0. (The exception to this is that most PhD adcomms will expect that someone with a master's degree will have earned a 4.0 or something close to it during M* work). But beyond that: crunch the numbers. One grade will not affect your GPA that much. If it's really, really stressing you out, by all means change to P/F. But admissions-wise? It probably won't matter. (I had a couple of P/Fs on my transcript, one from an art class in undergrad, and a couple from when I took classes for the heck of it during my year off. And the classes I took that semester are extremely relevant to what I do--I actually mentioned them in the SOP for the school to which I was admitted--so I don't think that P/F hurts. Or at least, not with that specific program).