Sparky

Yes. Theology M* programs take in students from all sorts of backgrounds. I had German but no Latin when I started my master's; other people I know came in with zero language skills. You'd have to sell the program on the idea that you are interested in something to do with religious history, of course. (I am a big advocate of using religion master's degrees, for which it is relatively easier to get at least some financial aid, in place of degrees in less-frequently funded subjects). What is your financial and geographical flexibility like? Many schools offer an intensive summer intro Latin class that *should* give you a reasonable basis for translation, although by no means is sufficient for in-depth research. They're usually open to outside students. There are a few places that have Greek as well. If you take this option, do some checking into the reputation of the school you choose. I would NOT, for example, recommend the intro class I took. (HAHAHAHA... That said, I highly recommend you work with a tutor if you are trying to learn as much as you can in a short time. (Maybe see if your former prof at the CC tutors, or knows someone else who would help?) That made a big difference for me. Also, just being willing to spend ridiculous amounts of time and spiritual angst translating passages. This is not formal coursework, of course, but if you get a letter of recommendation from your tutor that could also substitute for proof that you really do know the language. (My dept suggests a few other ways for prospective students with no coursework in Latin to prove their knowledge, like submiting results from the SAT II Latin test or UToronto's Latin exam. I don't know about Greek, though).

Unfortunately, you're right that MA programs are less likely to be funded. I (and a few other people I know) skirted this by doing our master's work in religion, where it's a little easier to get funding at that level. This would only work, however, if you're actually interested in religious history. There are some funded history MAs out there, though--there have been a few threads here on that in the past, if you want to search or just click back through the archives a few pages. Which brings up question of research interest. Do you know what area and era (of history) you want to work in? Although it's *possible* to switch subfields once you've been admitted to a program, and nearly everyone's interests shift at least a little from what we propose in our SOPs, in order to be competitive for PhD admission you really should have a good idea of what you want to focus on. (I'm not saying you don't; I just didn't see any reference to it in your posts, that's all). That, IMHO, is what a master's degree is for even more than language preparation or research skills--figuring out what the heck you want to study.

I suspect that, in some cases (not all!), the negative reactions have as much to do the fact that interviews are being required by Higher Authorities as any actual concerns about the interviews themselves. The article natsteel linked mentions the opposition of the chair of the religion dept. Yeah, um, some subfields of Yale's religion program do interview, and have for a very long time. Not all of them, but some. My own school interviews for many humanities departments. As I understand it, what it actually helps is yield rates. Retention/graduation rate has more to do with whether or not life circumstances intervene for students later on.

At my school, both in my dept and in related departments, undergrad/MA prestige *can* be a factor, though it's a somewhat zigzaggy relationship. The major situations where it can help are: (1) If you were able to cultivate a strong relationship with an academic rock star who then wrote one of your LORs. Though there are fantastic profs and hyperfamous scholars at all sorts of schools, they are more likely to be at top universities and colleges. (2) If people from your alma mater have already attended/are attending a program to which you are applying, provided they have been successful and pleasant to be around, it can boost your own application. Again, this could absolutely apply to any school, but it is more likely to happen with top schools. People here come from the full variety of undergrad schools, from Hickville State U Branch Campus to Ivy League. MA holders also come from a variety of programs, though generally (not without exception, though) those are better schools on average than our undergrads. (My BA and MA are in the Unexceptional U category--not great, not bad.) Also, +1,000 to Phil Sparrow.

ND sends out interview notices (via phone) in very late January or early February for end-of-February interviews. Final decisions are sometime in March, but, uh, if you don't get an interview invitation it is not good news. Good luck this year, everyone! My hopes and good thoughts are with all of you, both for successful app results and for surviving the next two months!

Well, those two profs will probably (almost certainly?) not be on the adcom, but that doesn't mean they won't see your SOP. In my dept, for example, the faculty actually pass around the SOPs and writing samples of finalists to *all* the faculty. The adcom definitely listens to their opinions, which is (according to the DGS) how I got in. And keep in mind that "on sabbatical" might very well mean "on campus but just not teaching this semester." It doesn't have to mean "incommunicado in the Brazilian jungle." Also, my general understanding is that some programs tend to be more exact about admitting people to work with specific POIs; some are more about admitting people to the program in general, if that makes sense.

1. Why do you want/need to go to graduate school? 2. What do you want your degree to do for you? pomo is right that the key to interdisciplinary programs--both admission to, and especially success in--is a relatively focused project that cannot be accomplished, or could only be accomplished with much difficulty, within a single discipline. You may very well have one in mind that you simply didn't mention, but on the basis of this post alone, I'm wondering how seriously you have thought about what you want out of a graduate degree. It appears that you simply tossed up a bunch of ideas of things you really like studying right now and don't want to give up. Okay, that's great, I'm so on board with that, but that's not a great reason to go to graduate school given the job market for humanities and humanities-ish PhDs (which is where your interests are circling). It is significantly harder to get an academic job with an interdisciplinary degree except for a handful of very well-known programs. In general, unless you are looking at one of them--Stanford MTL might qualify, but I honestly have no idea so don't quote me on that--or you are doing a PhD for the hell of it and have infinite wealth to back you up for the rest of your life, you should try absolutely everything in your power to make your topic fit into a traditional discipline. The good news is that disciplinary boundaries in graduate school are often surprisingly flexible (Nb: I say this as a person doing a PhD in an interdisciplinary program). I suspect that you might find a home for your project in English/comp lit or history, depending on the era and region in which you are interested. English/Anglophone literature in particular encompasses very nearly everything; the differences you see in scholarship often relate more to methodology than to subject matter. It's all and good to want to read and know lots about lots. I *love* my program; I would *love* to do the coursework for a PhD in each of the disciplines my own work draws on. That said, even my dept requires us to pick a discipline, concentrate our classes in it, rely on methodologies that satisfy its general guidelines for what makes a persuasive argument (very different between, say, English and philosophy), etc. As a final note, my impression is that philosophy is less conducive to interdisciplinary work than other fields. History--my own basis--it really depends on the era and region. I like history because it tends to be the most expansive in terms of topics covered, but you'll run into obvious problems if you want to look at the modern world. The English lit people in medieval and early modern really do just about everything (although their methodologies can be...um, questionable on occasion. says the historian), so if you interests are in that era-area it might be a great fit. The basic way to look for grad programs is to consider what journal articles and academic books you find most inspiring. Who does the kind of work you want to do? (Assuming you are looking at a hopeful position in academia) Where do they teach, what department do they teach in, where did they do their own doctoral work? That should give you a basic idea of what departments and schools you should be looking at. Don't get me wrong, I believe very strongly in interdisciplinary scholarshipand interdisciplinary programs alike. But you need to make it work for you, and that takes more than a general feeling of "But all of this is JUST SO COOL." (Keep that feeling. Guard it with your life. But you also need a plan.)

For PhD programs, I think it's sort of typical for the visitor to pay upfront and then get reimbursement from the school up to a certain amount. Also (for U.S. schools) whether you would be flying from overseas or not. Like everything else, it probably depends a significant amount on the particular school in question. As far as accomodations goes, it varies pretty widely *where* you stay (students' couches, on-campus hotel, hotel way the heck away from campus with provided shuttle, etc--and those are all examples from just my university). If the dept does not arrange sleeping space, however, the dept admin assistant would almost certainly help you out. My own school actually does interview weekends for most of the departments instead of a post-acceptance visit (rare for humanities, but there are a few holdouts). All that is of course paid for upfront by the school. The programs here that don't have an interview pay for travel to and from campus, and for a hotel room, but I don't know if those students pay and then get reimbursed or if the school just covers it.

Donald Logan, A History of the Church in the Middle Ages Peter Brown, The Rise of Western Christendom Bernard McGinn, The Growth of Mysticism and The Flowering of Mysticism Caroline Walker Bynum, Holy Feast and Holy Fast Giles Constable, The Reformation of the Twelfth Century Lester Little, Religious Poverty and the Profit Economy in Medieval Europe That's for a more HC perspective rather than a historical theo one. If you're looking for the latter, I think D'Onofrio's History of Theology II: The Middle Ages is a solid and fairly comprehensible (but expensive) overview, and will point out which primary texts are super-import, and you might want to pair that with Logan and McGinn. Major (Western) theologians with whom to become acquainted--Pseudo-Dionysius, Boethius, Gregory the Great, Eriugena, Anselm, Peter Lombard, Bernard of Clairvaux, Hildegard of Bingen, Bonaventure, Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus, Meister Eckhart. (A *horribly* reductionist list, my apologies to all offended). If you're interested in Byzantine stuff, let me know. That's not really my area but I have some general knowledge of what's out there. Some patristics would be helpful too, especially Augustine. Medievalists can never know too much about Augustine. :/ The bibliographies here are generally a good place to look for more, although there's some on the list I would avoid. University of Chicago has its PhD exam reading lists for early/high medieval and late medieval/early early modern online, which are also useful.

An electric kettle, snow pants, and a grown-up-sized version of this.

More Latin. All the Latin you can get your hands on. And then still more. Depending on where your interests are in medieval, you may find Greek helpful as well (at least, if you decide to pursue a PhD after the master's), or even Hebrew or Arabic. For secondary scholarship on medieval theo/HC, you *will* need French and German. If you let me know a little more about your interests I can probably suggest which one will be more important to know first, although in a lot of cases the answer will be 'um, both.' (I mean, in really broad terms--are you thinking early medieval? Byzantine? Scholastic theology? Lay piety? You don't have a clue yet but the Middle Ages are just that awesome*? Etc.) There are a few topics for which your Italian would be *enormously* useful, but I would concentrate on Latin, and on picking up either German or French. * I am in full support of this position, especially if you haven't even started an M* yet.

teachgrad, my program recommends taking the SAT II subject test in the language, if there is one. The other options would be to use sources in that language in your writing sample, or to have LORs that attest you can read them. With Portuguese, I bet you'd be safe to claim reading ability in that without backup, though, because you do have Latin and Spanish. Or at least, such a claim, although unverified, would be treated as much more credible than "And I learned Latin all on my own!"

Self-study: They won't believe you, unless you get an LOR from a language tutor or demonstrate your proficiency with the language in your writing sample by working with an untranslated source (and pointing this out in your SOP). Language institute: This usually works, especially if you get an LOR from your tutor or teacher. Many schools require 3 LORs but allow you to submit up to 4; a letter from a lang tutor can be a great addition. CC: You bet. If there is a standard proficiency test for the language you learn (e.g. an SAT II, Toronto Latin--says the medievalist--and so forth), taking that (and doing well, of course) can be another way to *demonstrate* that you know the language. In other words: show, don't tell.

Bullshit. The first semester of a graduate program--*any* graduate program--is a beast. Browse the 'officially grads' forum for "depression", "anxiety", "first semester blues," and so forth. A solid grad program is mentally, physically, and emotionally taxing in ways that very few of us get to go through before hand. I had a massive emotional crash the first semester of my MA and probably a worse one the first semester of my PhD (which, btw, was also at least partially related to SWEET HEAVENS THIS IS THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE); I'm now finishing up PhD semester #3 and I'm finally starting to feel human again. Well, sometimes. Also, *nobody* thinks they deserve to be in graduate school. It's called 'impostor syndrome.' (Really; this is A Thing). Actually, we simultaneously all think we're the shit, and shit. I cannot recommend highly enough checking to see whether your school has a graduate student support group that meets during the spring semester. I don't think I would still be here if it weren't for group last spring. (I couldn't go in the fall; I had class during every single possible support group/"drop in for a quick chat" scheduling block. It was horrible.) I'm wishy-washy on the merits of individual counselling, but just being able to vent and listen to other people vent about sort of similar but mostly different problems was cathartic and VALIDATING. Do you like what you do? Do you like EE? If so, stick it out at least another semester. See how you do when you have a chance to get your legs under you. I know quite a few people who ended up on academic probation their first semester. (Actually, I technically did as well, but that was due to an incomplete rather than a low GPA. Not that my GPA is a shining exemplar of scholastic aptitude. My undergraduate self curls up into a ball and sobs at the mere sight of it.)

I generally agree, because you never know who (i.e. faculty member of unknown and random subfield) will end up reading your writing sample. BUT, if you do history of the book, or anything medieval, be *sure* to highlight in your SOP (and have your advisor/other LORs point out!) your mss/paleography experience. That's a huge thing for HB and medieval.

TV Tropes.

I believe the late 90's would suggest "We are the bomb."

I vote Foucault, with extra points for Butler using Foucault. Not because he's necessarily the worst writer, or because his ideas are the most intricate. He actually makes a lot of sense (even if he was a lousy historian ) when other people* explain his ideas. That leads me to the conclusion that my problems comprehending him have more to do with bad writing than with the elusiveness of language in articulating certain ideas. (*excepting Butler. /sigh. Let us just say that "block quote" is here for a reason. Also excepting SparkNotes, but this should perhaps not come as a surprise.)

Hmm...what about languages? Do you know what era/region you're interested in studying? If you don't already have a/the relevant language(s), this spring would be a good time to look into a beginning class. (e.g. if asymmetrical warfare in the modern Middle East is your lifeblood, hie thee to an Arabic class; etc.). Safferz's advice about building close relationships with professors is spot-on. Office hours are your friend. If your school has someone in history or poli sci who is a Known Rockstar in something resembling your area of interest (or even the wider field of military history, that region/era's history, or defense studies), try your absolute best to develop a relationship with, or at least take a class with, that prof. For a lot of top programs, WHO writes the LOR matters almost as much as what it says. (On which note I hasten to add: I had *zero* superstar profs to write me letters, and came from a not-top MA program. Here I am at my dream program. But I'm sort of the exception here; most people in my program have BAs from a full range of schools but MAs from the tippy top, and had rockstars to write at least some of their LORs).

I really enjoyed the first two, the first more than the second. The deus ex machina near the end of Mockingjay killed it for me. It was a cheap way of letting Katniss (HG protagonist) evade what could and (IMHO) should have been a rather character-making decision. It cheapened pretty much that entire story arc. From a literary point of view, I would have been okay with Katniss being *manipulated* into it by other characters--after all, isn't that the whole point of the books?--but as it was the whole thing just felt cheap. ...But I still thought the first one was awesome. In other news, I am reading and loving Neal Stephenson's REAMDE. If there are any NS fans out there--it reminds me, thus far, of Zodiac more than anything else he's done, though Zula strikes me rather awesomely as a more sophisticated Y.T. At my current rate of 3-5 pages per day, it should only take me another five months to finish the thing. I still thank NS effusively for publishing it *this* fall and not next year, when I will be reading for comps.

I am pretty sure that feeling like this is in fact a sign that you are perfect for grad school in the humanities.

I agree. I guess I should qualify what I said earlier: if, by some chance, you don't realize that one of the LORs is missing and it is already PAST the deadline, all hope may not be lost. For the one school whose deadline I *did* realize (a different) one of my LORs would be late, due to snail mail/weather-related snafus, I did contact the program and verify. They said it was fine, but on the other hand, they were happy I had let them know. It's just in the case of my current school, it hadn't even crossed my mind that this particular LOR would be missing--the prof had sent the letters to the other schools already.

LORs can be late. Case in point: for the school I am at, one of my profs didn't submit the LOR until something like two weeks past the deadline. You can see how that worked out. A lot of it comes down to, (1) as you as YOU get YOUR part of the app done on time, and (2) as long as THEY have all the LORs by the time they sit down with the giant pile of apps, it's okay if something like an LOR or an official transcript sent from your undergrad comes in late. The number of humanities programs who actually look at apps before winter break is asymptotic to zero. (I think my PhD app cycle, one history person heard unofficially from one program over break.)

Now, I don't have the vaguest clue what you are defining as trauma or even to whose trauma you refer, but I'd be reeeally careful on this if I were you. In that "SOP kiss of death" article, pretty much the #1 lesson is "don't act like grad school will be your therapy." I have ZERO belief that you are planning to do that , but that's a really fine line to walk. Bottom line, you don't want to make the adcom (1) pity you (2) feel uncomfortably like they are eavesdropping on a discussion with your therapist (4) worry that you're so emotionally wrapped up in your topic that when things inevitably start to go badly you will collapse into dust or explode spectacularly. If you're not 100% confident that you need ( =emotional/spiritual need, not "but will it help me get in" need) to share it, it's probably better not to. You could always try writing one version with the anecdote and one without it, and see which version makes you feel more at peace with yourself. (I'm not qualified to pass absolute judgments in a case like this; I had an SOP opening best characterized as, um, risky, but I was at the point emotionally/mentally where I knew that if the adcom didn't want me after reading the first six lines, I didn't want that program, either).

Michael, I appreciate that you wrote out of emotion and I get where you're coming from, but the entire point is that your race and gender have helped you get this far. In the context not of the "history of inequality" but *of your life*, they have been and are anything but a hindrance. Sorry to be preachy, but--for those of us with social privilege in whatever category, it's at those times when we are most emotional and most passionated and most terrified for our individual fortunes that we have the responsibility to rise above personal bitterness. We're not going to end oppression if, whenever things start to go wrong, we default into "It's all about what's best for me from this point on, regardless of everything else." I do understand why you feel bad about it. It's like your shoe coming untied the last mile of a 10K. You have to stop and tie it or you'll trip and fall, and all you can think about is how everyone else is catching up and passing you and it's so unfair. You don't bother to remember that for many of the other runners, the race is actually a marathon. (ETA to make the capital letters into italics. This is not a post where I mean to be shouting.)