Minnesotan

It's always good to find new ways of supporting racism!

You forgot: providing humanitarian aid; storm, drought, and famine relief; and aid in times of foreign invasion, in some cases. But nobody cares about the good things people do, of course.

Stupid Indiana! We're obviously too good for them. =)

It's obvious they're either very busy, or ignoring you. Continued pestering might harm your case.

I would rethink your motivations for earning an advanced degree. If you're not completely certain that this is what you want to do for the rest of your life, you might be better served doing something else. Attrition rates are high, even among people who are determined and in love with their disciplines. To be anything less than certain means you're taking a huge risk with your time and money.

The study being within his field of inquiry does not make the argument any less generalized. It's understandable, considering his scope (the whole of Western history and much of its prehistory, heh), but this is why I don't like studies like this -- there's no possible way to support a theory treating the history of the known universe in a suitable manner. It's really just fun speculation.

American education has a different focus, though, at the undergrad level (and the high school level, really). Despite the constant push from industry to professionalize early, academia has stuck to its guns in attempting to offer a liberal education, rather than a four year version of the technical degree. The graduate degrees are where you specialize; the bachelor should receive a well-rounded education in as many disciplines as possible. Thus the extra post-baccalaureate coursework, I suppose. While UK students have received four years of training in their field (and little training in anything else) by the end of their BA/S, American students have received 2-3. However, they are more well-rounded. It's all a matter of what's important to you, though. My time studying in England was a wonderful experience, and I love the college system there -- it's much more personal and you really feel like you're part of a community. However, I think my interdisciplinary graduate work would have failed without the varied background I received in the U.S.

It was an interesting read, but filled with sweeping generalizations that I don't think hold up under scrutiny. It reminded me of Norman Cantor's In the Wake of the Plague, wherein he posited that because a particular strain of anthrax had been found in the graves of two plague victims that the plague was probably just that in most cases. I also don't like popular history written by non-historians (Jared Dymond was a medical researcher, if I'm not mistaken).

Anything but Guns, Germs, and Steel. If you want to peruse some selections from some of the primary sources, you could pick up The American Intellectual Tradition (2 vols.). It's a good entree into U.S. Intellectual History. The only problem is that any of the important works of novel/monograph length would have to be excluded, for obvious reasons.

phds.org has recent rankings based on customizable criteria, like educational effectiveness, faculty quality, time to degree, etc. It might be helpful to check out.

Many international schools, who are not part of the agreement, throw a wrench in the works y informing after April 15th, too. All sorts of things could conspire to make you have a tough ethical dilemma after you've accepted an offer.

Indigo has a good point. English programs in general are very competitive. The programs you are interested likely have 1-5% acceptance rates, so it would be helpful to scout out a few more schools to which you could apply. I know quite a few people who applied to 12-15 PhD programs this year, and they are not as abnormal as one might suspect. It's better to have too many acceptance letters than none at all.

I would contact an immigration lawyer before attempting to enter the country. It's better to be safe than sorry when it comes to visa issues, and they always treat you better when you have all of your forms and documents in order before you arrive.

Women's studies is located in the Social Sciences forum. I'm going to lock this duplicate (or highly-related very near duplicate).

I realize, after looking back at my comment, that my joke about the funding at Chicago could deter people from applying. I merely meant that you should go into the decision with eyes wide open. Although the MAPH program is something of a cash cow, it can also be very rewarding. I have a friend who went through the MAPH and was extremely happy with the atmosphere and rigor of the program. Sure, he's probably even more in debt now, but it might have paved the way toward a better academic future. I would think carefully about what you want, and how many loans you're willing to take out to get there.

Don't they let everyone in, with the understanding that you're going to fund all of their PhD students by means of your over-inflated tuition?

Depends on the discipline. In my field, I would lean toward option B.

It's difficult, since many programs seem to notify most of their acceptees first, then snailmail the rejects (thus the idea of the implicit rejection, if you were not among the first to hear). With this seemingly random process of screening the applications, Washington is certainly keeping people on their toes.

Washington seems to be taking an unconventional approach to evaluating these things, i.e. they grab a pile of applications and look over them, make some offers, then grab another pile. Whatever works for them, I guess. I wouldn't stress too much, yet. Their system renders the idea of an 'implicit rejection' null and void.

To utterly simplify, the waitlist is like a queue. Most people apply to a bunch of different programs, so some people get multiple good offers and have to reject the rest (you can only attend one school, no matter how many offers you get). When someone who was offered admission rejects the offer, the next person in line gets a shot. You just have to hope that the people ahead of you in line have better offers.

Provided you didn't lie on your application or forge any documents, you should be good. Congrats!

You can also ask for an extension for your decision, in light of extenuating circumstances. If you're straightforward with the DGS, they are normally reasonable people.

Why do people keep resurrecting this thread? lol

I am feeling more like the ball than the player. le sigh

Virginia was your backup?! That's a pretty damned good program. Either way, I feel for you. I'm 0 for 2 so far, myself.