Glasperlenspieler

I'm getting ready for my implied rejection lol

I've never been anywhere that would look down on jeans for students. In class I'm almost always in jeans and a flannel rolled-up at the sleeves. Most of the lecturers I know dress at least one step above the students--usually somewhere in the "business casual" range. I did know one guy who obsessively wore a tie every day, saying he wanted work-time to "feel different" from everything else, which I guess I get. When they put me in a classroom I'll go for nice jeans, a button-down, and a pullover, unless someone tells me to. I might dress up a little more for a conference, but only if it's a fancy atmosphere.

This about sums it up:

In all seriousness though, with 2 waitlist offers, 9 schools yet to hear back from, and figuring out schools visits, this is rough.

It's unclear to me from your post whether you have already applied and are deciding where to attend or if you are looking to apply in the future. I think it's the latter but I'm not sure.

Somebody posted this article in the history forum, which I found interesting: http://www.forbes.com/sites/drsarahbond/2017/01/23/dear-scholars-delete-your-account-at-academia-edu/#26fedab62ee0
Not sure whether the costs outweigh the benefits, but certainly something to consider.

This is a bit of a false binary I'm making here, but you're smart to be thinking about what might be called the tangible and intangible costs and benefits of your options. Like several others who've responded, I'm dismayed (but not entirely surprised) to hear that some academics have actively discouraged taking your "personal life" (i.e., relationship, distance from loved ones) into account when making your decision on where to attend. And while it's true that some academics (many, in fact) can and do spend extended periods of time away from their partners -- while in school or afterward while working -- this isn't at all a "one size fits all" situation. Not all of us are wired for what worked for Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, for example, and it's worth repeating that there's no need for us to be either. (Aside: I wonder, too, about the gendered and engendering dynamics of this kind of advice in terms of the gender(s) of the person who advocates for what kind of scenario and how tailored said advice is to the prospective graduate student in question depending on their gender(s).) But as many already attending programs have indicated and/or who've been the partner for someone attending a program near and/or far, our academic and scholarly lives are hopelessly, complicatedly, and beautifully entangled. And, finally, indivisible. This is just my two cents. 
On the "academic" side of the equation: I agree that the programs you describe appear to be equal "on paper," though each offers unique opportunities not necessarily matched by the other. Being able to get a certificate in African Studies is certainly a selling point. Yet even taking into account the fact that your research interests likely will broaden and deepen into other areas falling under the umbrella of Postcolonial Studies once you begin coursework, reading for field/comprehensive exams, if African literature figures prominently in your dissertation (one or more chapters, I mean), that expertise will speak for itself in your scholarship in addition to any conference papers, presentations, articles, etc. The other school with a larger contingent of faculty working within Postcolonial Studies in a variety of ways is an equally valid selling point because, as you point out too, broadening the scope of your inquiry would be a good thing.
The major unknown in this situation, of course -- the question of "fit" -- will be answered when you visit both schools. Part of that involves the atmosphere of the department: the engagement and overall morale of your peers in and outside of your fields (are they happy, do they feel supported by faculty, do they support each other, does competitiveness or pettiness run riot) and the engagement and morale of the faculty (are they invested in working with, training, and supporting their students; are they available; are any in your area getting ready to go on sabbatical or fellowships to other institutions, etc; how do the faculty in and adjacent to your fields get along with each other). Graduate students can and hopefully will speak to rivalries and/or friction between faculty and/or amongst themselves. Sometimes all-star scholars are wonderfully invested and engaged in fostering graduate students working within their fields, but this is by no means always the case. You, better than anyone, know what your learning style is and how you will flourish best. And, of course, there's the magical calculus of who you'll respond to best. It might be at the school with the larger group of Postcolonial scholars -- who knows? -- and it might be at the Midwestern school.
Other academic tangibles: I'd agree that, theoretically, interdisciplinary coursework between departments relevant to your interests is hopefully possible; that's definitely something to ask about. Other important things to ask about on visits and to research include: what's the average time to degree for students within this department and/or what's the attrition rate? And, of course, job placement: where are the graduates getting jobs: what kinds of tenure-track jobs vis-à-vis the kinds to which you aspire (R1, SLAC, public versus private) do graduates get in and out of their fields, how many are lecturers or postdocs or adjuncting, how many move into alt-ac careers? Prestige and academic pedigree undeniably play a part in this, of course, but the numbers of each institution will also speak for themselves, and be prepared to ask for the hard data. Other things that might be relevant: how much departmental and university-wide support is there for attending conferences nationally and/or internationally; are there research fellowships you can apply for if you need to do archival work in the US or abroad, or to pick up another language for research?
Now, on the intangible side, which is to say the "personal" side: as you point out, how far "fully funded" goes is incredibly important. I consider this here -- and not with the academics -- because, for me at least, financial solvency has a direct impact on quality of life and state of mind. The cost of living where each of these schools are located is most definitely something to consider. You know your financial situation best. But I think you're smart to acknowledge that the higher stipend of the NYC program doesn't necessarily translate into more money in your pocket, though perhaps staying in NJ would alleviate that somewhat. Another enormous factor that I never considered when I was preparing to enter my program -- and that I learned the hard way -- involves how many months of the year you're funded. Does your funding extend through the summer months and, further, do you have guaranteed funding during every summer or, alternatively, some summers? If your funding is contingent on you serving as a TA or as the instructor of record in your own classroom, does the university guarantee such positions during the summer? (If they don't, it's worth asking how they select who *does* get those positions.) If teaching isn't guaranteed, are there other opportunities available to help you make ends meet as a research assistant, working in a writing center, etc? And, perhaps most importantly, if you're paid on a monthly basis and if your fellowship actually covers 9 months out of the year more than a full 12, when are the gap months when you cannot rely on your funding to pay your bills. In my program, for example, those gap months run from June all the way through the end of September -- unless you're TA'ing or teaching during the summer session and/or otherwise employed in another capacity over the summer months. If I am not working during the summer session, for example, I don't receive a paycheck from the university until October 1st -- and must figure out how to make ends meet from the final paycheck received on June 1st all the way until October 1st.
As far as the relational: I agree with what others have said re: trusting yourself to know what kind of situation will set you up for success. Like you, my partner and I have been in a long-distance relationship since I've been in my program and live roughly two hours away from each other (in Texas time, that's basically nothing as far as driving goes, but it's distance nonetheless). When I was applying to programs -- which were scattered all over the country -- we were likewise facing the possibility that, depending on where I did and didn't get accepted, the best opportunity for me might be in another part of the country. We were prepared for this but, like you, were hoping it might not turn out that way. I should say, too, that I did go across the country for my undergraduate degree (in North Carolina; I'm originally from Texas). And while it was a wonderful experience, it was also damn hard in ways I couldn't have imagined until I was actually doing it. I was prepared to do it again if need be, but I had no illusions about how much more vigilant I would be regarding self-care and support systems if and when I did find myself in a completely new place, without any of my friends or family, by myself. All of this is to say that you're wise to take into account the benefits of being closer to your partner as opposed to farther away. Were I in your situation without having visited the schools in question, I would definitely be leaning hard toward the school that's closer (in NYC) because I, for one, find moving incredibly stressful. And, yes, it is also expensive (it's worth asking if the university in the Midwest offers any way to defray the costs of moving). The slog of commuting, on the other hand -- whether by bus, train, or driving yourself -- can be similarly draining emotionally and financially. It's worth asking the students at NYC how many of them commute (and from where), how they do it, and how hellish (or not) their schedules are (I mean, for example, having to wake up at 4 or 5am in order to be on campus for a class that meets in the morning; or, alternatively, if all the graduate classes are at night, realizing that you may be getting home very, very late). I live outside of Austin and drive 25 miles to an outlying city transit center and then ride a commuter bus into Austin to get to campus on the days I have class and/or teach. In total, it takes between 1.5 to 2 hours to/from campus, and I use that time to get as much reading done as possible. This semester, I'm doing that two days a week -- which is an absolute godsend, although I get up at 5am on those days and don't get home until between 4-6pm -- but by the time I get home, I am done with thinking for the day. Because I'm all but out of coursework and am writing my dissertation now, I use the days I'm not on campus to write and/or take care of any household things that need doing, but the thought of having to take a night class (6pm-9pm), commute 1.5-2 hours home, and then potentially get up at 5-6am to teach a morning class is a prospect I dread having to face (but very well might). As I've written everyone's ears off, I'll quit while I'm ahead. But it's good that you're thinking about this from as many angles as possible, and I hope that visiting each campus will answer a lot of the questions you have!       
 

Two thoughts:
 
1. Given that both are strong programs that would be a good fit for your research interests, I don't think it's unreasonable to pick the NYC option to stay with your partner. If there was a large difference in fit/ranking then I could see arguments against doing this, but it seems to me like a very valid tie-breaker.
2. Have you visited these programs? On paper it sounds like both are good options. But you may find that you simply click with one program/advisor and not with the other. This is probably something that can only be determined by visiting (although that's not even 100% conclusive).
So, I'd say visit both and go with your gut. If it's still a wash at that point, go for NYC for personal reasons.

Two thoughts:
 
1. Given that both are strong programs that would be a good fit for your research interests, I don't think it's unreasonable to pick the NYC option to stay with your partner. If there was a large difference in fit/ranking then I could see arguments against doing this, but it seems to me like a very valid tie-breaker.
2. Have you visited these programs? On paper it sounds like both are good options. But you may find that you simply click with one program/advisor and not with the other. This is probably something that can only be determined by visiting (although that's not even 100% conclusive).
So, I'd say visit both and go with your gut. If it's still a wash at that point, go for NYC for personal reasons.

When will this hellish roller coaster of excitement and disappointment finally come to an end...

Haha thanks! I'd certainly be OK with that result! But honestly, now that I have a few great offers, I really just want a definitive answer from the rest of the programs so that I can get down to making a decision. 

Haha thanks! I'd certainly be OK with that result! But honestly, now that I have a few great offers, I really just want a definitive answer from the rest of the programs so that I can get down to making a decision. 

Haha thanks! I'd certainly be OK with that result! But honestly, now that I have a few great offers, I really just want a definitive answer from the rest of the programs so that I can get down to making a decision. 

I'm hoping Brown sends out a second wave of acceptances today so you can add another to the acceptance column.

Yeah, Princeton is definitely a long shot for me too. But hey, you never know! Wishing us both good luck!

*shrugs* *trembles* *fears* *tears*
Plus, I had very good email exchanges with a Prof. from the department. I know it doesn't guarantee anything, and that Princeton is a very long shot, but it got my hopes up and I feel like only they can save me.  

That is both a relief and an instant panic attack!

My boyfriend's mom has taken to making me hold (and, occasionally, be photographed with) various babies in the hopes that I will change my mind about not having children. I do not want children. Her son claims not to want children. If he decides that he wants children, he can pack it up and go have some with someone else. Introducing me to babies is just going to make me less inclined to have my own. Babies are terrible.

Also in at Riverside with a fellowship!

Also in at Riverside with a fellowship!

From personal experience both of these pieces of advice are spot on.
 

Teach ESL abroad? Take a job not related to your field and have a chance to rest your brain from it and look at the world in a different light? 

Last year I applied to eight schools and struck out completely. It was definitely a major setback, but I have to say, the extra year it afforded me was an incredible year for developing my scholarship and shaping & reshaping my research interests. I wouldn't be where I am today without that year, and (while I was fortunate enough to have a teaching job I could continue for another year), I used the year to read dozens of new academic texts and isolate new, competitive, and interesting (to me) areas of research. All of this is to say that when I got shut out, my way forward was to find and read six books of theories I didn't yet understand. It's painful, but a great way to continue forward as a scholar and build on how great I'm sure you already are.

I posted that when I woke up and saw it since I'm currently in Europe. I think I got it around the same time Nichi posted.

Thought it might be helpful to disambiguate ways that "extracurriculars" like conferences, workshops, clubs etc can matter. 
i) These things can matter in that they make your application more likely to be selected for admission than somebody with a similar quality writing sample, scores, letters, etc. 
ii) These things can matter in that they can help you become a better philosopher and improve parts of your application
The general sense I've gotten from my faculty at both my undergrad and grad departments is that while you ought to try and do all these things because they will likely help with (ii), they really don't contribute to (i) at all. It's possible that publications will help with (i), but only in high quality journals. And possibly a big name conference would fit with that, too. But talking to people at other programs and people I've met elsewhere who are applying, I've definitely gotten the sense that people think that, at the very least giving conference presentations is an important part of a good admissions file, and that doesn't square with what I've heard from faculty.
Since presenting your ideas in philosophy clubs, getting feedback from philosophers outside your program, workshopping your papers at conferences etc will all make you a better philosopher, you ought to do it as much as you can. But the seemingly widespread belief that this is what admissions committees are explicitly looking for or that they even look favorably on it seems mistaken. The best explanation I've heard for why this is is that while people applying are looking to completely dedicate themselves to philosophy, it's not a prerequisite for applying that one already have completely dedicated their lives to philosophy. Not everybody comes from programs that can fund their traveling to conferences, or has the time to run workshops or clubs or the like, especially if they were working jobs while they were completing their degrees. So if somebody completely lacking in extracurriculars took the time to produce a high quality application and had letter writers speaking to their dedication, it's unlikely that anybody would notice the lacking extracurriculars, let alone hold it against the applicant. That said, it might be harder for such an applicant to produce as high quality an application as somebody who was regularly workshopping their ideas at conferences and the like.

Argh. I don't want to sound like a surly old man, but here's the thing...

It's perfectly fine for you (us) as Ph.D. program hopefuls to be antsy about admission timelines. It's to be expected, really -- it's one of the biggest moments of our lives, and that's not hyperbole. BUT, you should also keep in mind that these admissions committees are often dealing with upward of 300 applications...and almost all of those applicants are in the same boat as you: worrying, antsy, emotional, on edge, and unsure of when they'll hear back. Admissions committees have an unenviable task, and while it's largely a mystery to us as to how they make their decisions (and it almost certainly varies by program), I just think that we have to respect that they do it the way they do it for a reason. Professors are usually busy at the best of times, and I can only imagine how hectic it is during this time of year when they're sitting on an adcom. Likewise, a DGS (and his/her staff) has to juggle all of these acceptances, rejections, and waitlists for a couple of months. 

All of this is to say that I completely understand the desire to know all of your options as soon as possible...but sometimes I worry that that desire starts to merge into an expectation that you are owed an answer right away. I simply think that you have to respect the process, and understand that adcoms have their reasons for doing the things they do the way they do them. They have to do their job...and it's a very hard job to do. Calls and emails from panicky applicants isn't going to speed up the process or change anything.

I hope this doesn't come across as a rant. I don't mean it as a rant. I just want you to remember that, as difficult as the waiting process is for us, it's also difficult on the adcom side of things. Just try your best to be patient. 



ETA: Cross-posted with AnxiousGrad