Minnesotan

I doubt a professor would give you such advice if he/she did not think it was significant to your future. Also, most lit programs allow a lot of interdisciplinarity. I doubt French lit would be different.

Theory nerd ^^

Most schools will let you enroll in grad courses as a non-degree student. It's just that you won't get any funding.

Right. I'm not asking people to dream smaller. What I'm saying is that you should remain open to, and in fact seek out, a few schools that aren't quite as prestigious, but are still solid. Prepare a nice, wide spread of schools to which you will apply. So, a list like Harvard, Berkeley, Minnesota could be complemented with Georgia State, Washington State, and Florida State (or wherever you fit -- you get the point).

Is it worth taking the chance you might annoy someone?

If you all want $0.05 from an 'old pro' at grad apps, let me tell you this: when I applied to PhD programs last year, most of my schools were down near 1-2% acceptance rate. In the past, they quoted a rate between 3-15%. I would consider expanding your searches to some colleges in the top 100, rather than merely top 25-50 schools. Rankings at this level of study really don't matter a whole heck of a lot. Check placement rates, but don't put so much stock in US News, et al. Less people apply to mid-level schools, and fit is what really matters. I decided long ago that I would rather get a PhD from any Research I than a whole bunch of rejections from the ivies.

I think that's mainly for the score in your general gre test. I can't imagine there would be a very high cutoff point, if any, for the insanely random questions they ask in the subject test.

I sympathize. I went back to school after quite a break, myself. However, I finished a new BFA when I did, so I did not run into the same problems as you. Not helpful, I know, but it's always nice to have people with whom you can commiserate. =)

That's awesome! A shout out to my peeps in Brooklyn, and my homie Foucault!

Loose, baggy monsters, indeed! This is going to spark a shitstorm of "rank these programz, plz" posts around here, and the problem is that only you can evaluate who has the best program for you. Not Newsweek, not the NRC, and decidedly not the name of the sporting league (*cough*Ivy*cough*) of which the university is a member. le sigh

If your SoP, WS, and LoRs are strong, you can overcome almost anything.

Criminals always attempt to deflect the attention toward someone else. "I endorse fraud, but what you said was racist." It's telling that the latter (and completely subjective) charge is what our British friend clings to when the issue comes to a head. I'm sorry, but even if what Solefelia had uttered was racist, how would that make your encouraging others to commit forgery and fraud any different? (For the record, what she said is not considered racist or "hate speech" on these fora.)

No. If you have a screwdriver, a hammer, and a socket set you should be alright in life. What theory does is create highly specialized tools that only matter to people who try to craft certain objects that are representative of their political biases. If you don't feel the need to make such objects, then why would you need to learn the intricacies of every approach to theory? Now, I am not suggesting that you should ignore theory entirely, since every professor has his or her political biases that may or may not affect your grade, should you disagree or be ignorant of the important arguments in his/her pet theoretical framework. All I am saying is that theory is not required -- it is a new construction, with some helpful and some harmful aspects -- but is an option. Familiarize yourself with what is out there, but don't feel pressured to become an expert in, say, post-colonialism, just because you think all English majors need to know it. We don't.

Of course the verbal sections are inconsistent -- it is measuring your overall verbal ability by testing your familiarity with randomly-chosen difficult words within a pre-selected pool. The only way there could be any consistency is if you learned all the words, or none of the words, in the pool. Right now, you know some of the words, so your only chance to do well is to be lucky enough to have the words you know show up on the test. You want a strategy for the verbal? Learn more words. It really isn't a difficult test.

This is a way to get around a court ruling against race bias during the selection process, and I would treat it as such. The UC system started doing the same thing, once California forbade racist policies in admissions, letting some people in because the people in power decided that the applicants' entire race was unable to make it on their own merit. What they want is a "diversity statement" from you. The point is to get the most "diverse individuals" (since one person cannot be diverse, except as related to a previously existing group, I would read this as meaning non-traditional, non-white, or non-rich) into the program without actually referring to race. This can also refer to social class, or to individuals whose parents did not attend college, too. Devise your own strategy for how to deal with this, but I am sure they are looking for you to volunteer information about your race, class, gender, or religion that would make it seem to the adcom like you'd be a great poster-person for diversity.

You forgot to mention that most of these posts come from Ivy Leaguers. Anyway, while I sympathize with both parties, do try to be a little more forgiving. This process makes everyone sweat.

I love when people call history programs conservative; it tickles my irony bone.

There is no mature way to respond to this post. It will only serve to bring the entire conversation down to the poster's level. On a related note, why can't there ever be a heated discussion among academics without someone standing on a table, shouting "RACISM!," "SEXISM!," or NAZISM!"? You would think we would have developed more complex ways of seeing the world by now. But, I guess when you spend all day looking for pink elephants, you're bound to start seeing them everywhere. *sigh*

The only problem is that you might turn off people who think you are working backward. That is, most people study a broad curriculum in undergrad and during the MA, then specialize during the PhD. Most grad schools don't want to train generalists, unless they are preparing you solely for teaching, not research.

At my school, the American Studies program has stopped funding new MAs and PhDs for next year. I can't imagine trying to hold down a real job while earning a PhD. (Luckily I'm in RhetComp, so there are always half a gajillion sections of freshman comp to teach.)

Hypothetically speaking, of course...

I guess the Lit. Theory edition of the "Very Short Introduction" series is pretty good. It's also cheap. I wouldn't feel obligated to read theory, if I were you. Theory is a choice, not a requirement.

I would worry about reading comprehension scores on future standardized tests. =)

I have now killed one bunny. Please do not make me do it again. =)

Because she has a high GPA, it's okay to forge her recommendation letters? Or is fraud not a heinous enough crime to report? Should we wait until it comes down to rape, murder, or ripping off mattress tags before we speak up? This attitude sickens me. Only a complete asshat would call someone who reported a crime a tattle-tale. Anyone who supports this type of behavior has no place in academia. I mean, really! Assuming that everyone who has a shred of academic integrity needs to "live a little"?! Maybe wasting time drinking too many pints are why you feel the need to cheat, sir!