Glasperlenspieler

@tmck3053, I think we're pretty much on the same page. It's definitely an absurd game, and I don't want to defend it. Just trying to lay out the contours to the degree I understand them. I think you're right though that there are some Ivy-plus institutions that will hire people with perfect pedigrees and no publications but look down upon someone with a publication in a lower tier journal. I think publishing strategy is going vary depending on what sort of institutions you're getting your PhD from and what sorts of institutions you're applying to (and maybe subfield as well). I stand by my " if as a BA or MA student you can get published in a top tier journal, great. But if not, don't worry about it, sit on it, and just try to make it the best writing sample you can." But yeah, a lower tier publication definitely isn't going to sink your application, but I don't think it'll help all that much and there may be reasons to wait and see if you can do something more with it down the line. (The exception to this is that some subfields are really fast moving, such that a response paper may be very timely now, but maybe no one will care in 4 years. Idk, it's complicated).

How so? I think my inclination would be to say the exact opposite (sorry if this is derailing the conversation). If a paper is not good enough to be published in a top journal that probably means either a) it will never be good enough to be published in a top journal or b) there's an idea there that could be published in a top journal, but it is not at the moment in a form that is ready for that. I'd say that as someone who has not yet entered a PhD program, it might be pretty hard to tell whether (a) or (b) is this case. But if it is (b), then the 5+ years you spend in a PhD program may be what you need to bring the idea to the next level. So why publish it prematurely in a subpar journal when, with added time and training, it could make it into a top journal? And if it's (a), then it might be something that 10 years down the line, you don't really want associated with your name or it could be something that is worth publishing in a lower tier journal nonetheless. But if it's the latter, given the uncertainty about which it is, why not just wait? Whereas I think the job market is now such that you really ought to have published *something*. So if the choice is between no publications (not counting book reviews) and an article in a lower tier journal, it might be worth just having the publication on your CV. But since publications on your CV aren't expected for PhD admissions, this situation doesn't really seem to apply there. Now, there's also the situation that often things published before getting a tenure track job will not count toward your tenure profile. So, there certainly is some reason to also not publish *too* much before you get hired, but you're probably gonna need a couple publications to get hired for a TT position these days. Anyway, that's my take. YMMV. In general, I think don't publish for the sake of publishing prior to the dissertation phase, but if a prof says that something might be worth submitting, then certainly take that advice seriously.

And if you can't get an article published in a top journal at this stage of your career, there are good arguments for not publishing it in a lower tier journal just for the sake of having a publication.

I agree with @snorkles. A great CV isn't going to get you into grad school. A stellar writing sample and a compelling statement of purpose outlining an innovative research program might. You say you want to pursue a PhD in comp lit, but you don't mention anything about your language background. I assume if you want to get into a comp lit program focusing on Caribbean literature, you're probably going to need to be (near) fluent in either Spanish or French, and it would probably be good to have a working knowledge of the other language. Some more traditional comp lit programs are going to want to see competency (variably defined) in three languages other than English by the time you're writing your dissertation. That means they'll want to see a solid grounding in two in order to be a competitive applicant. But if you want to work on primarily anglophone literature, why not apply to English departments?

Many departments provide profiles for their grad students which include their educational background. Yale's Spanish department, for instance, does this: https://span-port.yale.edu/people/graduate-students Spend some time looking at departmental webpages and you can get a decide idea of the profile for a typical student.

Can you say more about your language skills and their relevance to your research? I think you'll have a hard time getting into a more traditional comp lit program without a solid grounding in two languages other than English that are both relevant to your research. There are some less traditional programs though, that you could have a shot at (Duke Literature, for instance, doesn't really prioritize language skills to the best of my knowledge). Also the comp lit job market sucks worse than most other fields, and most comp lit PhDs end up getting jobs in a national language/literature department (if they get jobs at all). So one way or another, you're going to have to make yourself marketable to such departments.

But to @Sigaba's point, there's a difference between what is allowed and what is expected of you. Residency requirements only speak to the former, and may not even be relevant for how one spends summer/semester breaks. Agreed. It can be especially usefully to (tactfully) ask about how professors spend their summers ("How often do you typically meet with your advisees during the summer?"). In my program, for instance, a large proportion of professors spend a large portion of the summer out of the area. So if you happen to be working with such professors, it's largely irrelevant whether or not you're in town during the summer. But, in the same program there are professors who certainly will not go out of their way to meet with an student who isn't around to drop by the office, and if your work is deemed subpar, you will be the one held responsible for not maintaining sufficient communication with committee members. In short, departmental culture on this can vary widely and even within departments, different professors will have different (sometimes articulated) expectations.

It would seem that the start date for Fulbright grants has been postponed across the board until at least January 1st, 2021.

@Duns Eith is certainly right in their assessment, but I read the OP as asking more about the possibility of being in a location other than that of the university rather than taking time off per se. If you have family abroad and don't have teaching obligations or work that requires you to be on campus over the summer it is certainly feasible to spend most of the summer abroad with your family *and continue working*. Even before the current crisis, most advisors are happy to meet with their advisees vie Skype/Zoom, and that will likely be even more true now, and as long as you have internet connection and an environment in which you can work, there's no reason you can't continue to make progress remotely.

Many (most?) universities will not reward a degree in a field if you have already completed that same degree in the same or a closely related field at another university. So, if you wanted to get an MA is something other than philosophy, then that would be a possibility (though probably wouldn't help you much if you want to pursue a PhD in philosophy). But you're unlikely to be admitted to a philosophy MA program since you already have one. Pedigree isn't everything though. Focus on your writing sample and statement of purpose, and you could certainly have a shot at PhD programs.

Once you already have residency, I think you can get away with this and *maintain* residency, but I think you'll have to be careful about assuming you can *obtain* residency in this way. Expectations vary by state, but they'll generally want to see a lease/rental agreement, in-state voter registration, in-state driver's licence, in-state car registration (if you have a car), and sign a form declaring that, among other things, a preponderance of your belongings are in-state and it is your primary residence. For stricter states, things like having an account at a local credit union, demonstrated community activities (beyond the university), actually voting (not just being registered), and paying taxes in-state can also come into play.

Yeah, as a current grad student, when I get emails from prospective students I'm much more inclined to wait a few days until I can provide a more substantive response than to shoot of an email as quickly as possible. Also, if possible, I'd encourage you to Skype/zoom with professors and current students. The intangible features of a program may come across very differently in a video chat format than an email.

I certainly don't mean to imply that someone is not being genuine. I just think it's important to be careful when comparing structural features of a program (teaching load/stipend/fellowship years) with more intangible aspects (sense of community, feeling prioritized, people seeming happy, etc.). The latter are certainly important, but perception of them is also variable depending on mode of communication, the current degree of preoccupation of your correspondent, and a host of extraneous factors.

How confident are you that this is indicative of daily life in the program and not a very effective recruitment effort? I would say that one year free from teaching, a significantly higher stipend, and a 1:1 is subsequent years should be weighed very heavily against having to teach every year, a lower stipend, and a 1:2. It's not that other factors can't make up for that, but it would have to be a very compelling array of factors. Have you talked to grad students at either program? You sort of make it sound like you've only contacted professors (who may be really working the recruitment effort at one university and be really preoccupied with pandemic related upheavals at the other). I think it's paramount that you get some grad student perspectives at bot universities, especially if you are considered the offer with worse funding. edit: I do now see that you've talked to grad student. I would still really do some digging before accepted a a lower funded offer when the difference is that significantly lower.

My anecdotal experience suggests that students who have spent a few years doing something other than school are often more emotionally and intellectually prepared for the rigors of graduate school than those who went straight through. There are obviously exceptions to this, but I certainly don't think there is any imperative to go straight to graduate school in order to be successful.

Yes, it is possible a post-pandemic economic downturn will make grad school applications more competitive. But it's almost certain to make the job market worse (and it's already bad). So, while I tend to think it's never a good idea to go into debt for grad school in the humanities, I think it's possible that it's an ever worse idea now, considering that the chance of return on investment is *even lower* than it normally is.

cranberries

I honestly wouldn't worry about it. I think it's pretty reasonable to believe departments when they say that there are more qualified applicants than there are spots in the incoming cohort. The competition is tough and if you're being offered a waitlist, then you are good enough and they do want you. Plus, a) everyone is going to feel imposter syndrome at some point during their time in grad school, even those that were accepted outright, and b) in a year or two (if that) most of the professors won't remember who was accepted outright and who was accepted off the waitlist. They have more important things to worry about and at that point they will be able to base their opinion of you off of personal experience and not your application.

I'd agree with @karamazov. At this point, you should decide which of the three programs to which you've been accepted you'd most like to attend and decline the offers from the other two. Wait to accept the offer from your favorite of the three until the last minute in case your wait list pans out. It would probably make sense to email the department where you're waitlisted a few days before the April 15th deadline informing them that you would like to attend if accepted but are planning on accepting another offer if you don't hear anything further from them.

The problem is that these decisions are not made on the departmental level. They will be made by the administration and most professors are probably as out of the loop as you are.

Two quick points: 1. From an outsider perspective the Chicago change (assuming this article is what we're talking about) seems like a decidedly positive change in that it uses funding as a carrot rather than a stick and it incentivizes decreased enrollment. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/10/09/university-chicago-will-guarantee-full-funding-all-humanities-and-social-sciences 2. It became clear in a dispute in our department that our admission letters are not viewed as legally binding documents, but rather good faith promises. I can't generalize that to other situations, but don't assume they will be treated as contracts. (You may however sign an annual TA contract or the like and that *is* legally binding) P.S. I don't want to be a doomsayer, but I'm not at all convinced that this will all blow over by the fall (in fact, quite the opposite): https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/17/opinion/coronavirus-social-distancing-effect.html

There seems to be some confusion in this thread with regards to terms like "similarly ranked" "ivy brand" "elite" "peer institution" and pedigree. The Ivy League is a Football league consisting of elite private universities in the Northeast. While U Chicago is not a member of this football league (it's not in the Northeast), it is also an elite private university and it offers the same academic pedigree as any of the ivies. The same could be said for Stanford. (It's possible that Chicago's name value outside of the academic world is less than that of the Ivies/Stanford, but I'm not sure). So, the OP's original grouping doesn't make much sense to me because Harvard, Princeton, and Chicago are all elite private universities with top pedigree/name value. Michigan and UCLA, on the other hand, are top-notch flagship state universities. They also carry with them a certain name value and are undoubtedly world class educational institutions, but may not have the same "prestige" as the others. Now, in terms of placement alone, the name value is not going to get you a job (though it may get your application a second look, but so would having an advisor whose friends with someone on the hiring committee). To a large degree, prestige is a proxy for other aspects of a university, namely money. The Ivies, Chicago, Stanford, etc. have lots of money. I mean, lots of it. That means they can attract the best professors, offer those professors lots of research funding, ensuring that they produce top quality research, and in turn increase the name value of those professors and the department/university as a whole (which then attracts students from rich families who donate to the universities and the rich keep getting richer, but I digress). This money also means that graduate students often only have to Teach or TA for a couple of years during their studies and can devote the rest of their time to writing a dissertation, going to conferences, and publishing, whereas students at some public universities might be teaching one course per semester as instructor of record (or more!). This excess of money means both that students have more time to produce better research (and aren't stressing about making end meet) and that the university's money works to create a focal node for networking (they can afford to invite a top scholar to campus every week, etc.). That's the advantage the "prestige" really offers (prestige, of course, being self-perpetuating as the name value brings in more money). Now, that's not to say that you absolutely need to go to the more prestigious university if you can. If you work in subfield Y and *the* leading figure in the field is at a public uni, that may be a good reason to attend. And the ivies are certainly no guarantee that you will get a better education (I think the culture at some of them can be pretty toxic and not conducive to learning so much as competition). It also depends on where you hope to get a job (reminder: there are no jobs). Private elite institutions tend to higher PhDs from private elite institutions. Public, teaching focused colleges, however, can be pretty wary of such PhDs sometimes because they're afraid they'll up and leave when they get a better offer and/or that they don't have the experience/skill set to work with the sorts of students at those institutions. So prestige can backfire, but it's also probably safer than not, all else being equal.

There's nothing more to say than this: Or, to reiterate the point:

Another thing you might try and do is find a student who works in his area and doesn't have him as an advisor and ask why. (And generally I think you're more likely to get candid answers to questions like these via phone/skype than email. Students may be reluctant to say anything in too strong terms in writing)

Another good question for grad students: What do you do in your spare time? While it be nice to know what extracurricular activities are available in the are, the real importance of this question is in seeing how they react to being asked about their spare time. That will tell you a lot about quality of life as a grad student in the department. Also good to ask questions that get at departmental politics, especially if you can do this not in writing. Who do you have on your committee and why? Who would you not put on a committee together? What are the factions/fault-lines in the department?