Glasperlenspieler

I'd also be hesitant to use Duke and NYU as representative examples of the field. They are probably two of the most theory-centric comparative literature programs in the country. The program requirements for Harvard, Princeton, UNC, and Berkeley all require comprehensive exams covering a broad historical scope in your literatures of choice (just to name the programs whose program requirements are available on their website and I've read through and remembered).

I feel like this might trigger the apocalypse, if I were actually to do it. At the very least, I wouldn't know what to do with myself. Buy more books probably.
Luckily, I'm in no danger of this happening any time soon.

I like Duolingo a lot, but I think it's better for review or at least for after you have the basic grammar down. Then again, I like to understand the overall system of things first, so maybe that's just my learning style. Combining Duolingo with a good grammar handbook could be a good way to go.

If you get accepted to both, it's certainly worth inquiring as to whether the program would allow you to defer. I think a program would be more apt to allow a deferral for a Fulbright, but you never know.
 
If you don't have that option, you've got a tough choice ahead of you. You'll probably get mixed responses on here, but here are my two cents. As you say, graduate admissions are a crapshoot. This means that if you get accepted this time around, it's no guarantee that you will get accepted next time, even if you apply to the same schools with the same materials. This is because the applicant pool may have changed, the admissions committee may have changed, or there may now be too many students at that program with your area of interest. Things might also change in your favor or not at all. You have know way of knowing. Furthermore, applying to PhD programs is expensive (and time consuming), so it's worth thinking about whether you are able or willing to afford another round of applications.
 
All that being said, all else being equal, I'd say go with the Fulbright. I'm doing a similar program specific to the country I'm in, and I really believe there's nothing like living in another country for a year. You experience things and learn and grow in ways I think it's difficult to do otherwise. So, if you haven't had this opportunity yet, then I'd say take it (if you have, then your decision metric is a little different). The other point in it's favor is the value of a year off. There are lots of people who go straight from BA to PhD and do great for themselves. However, I also think it can be a recipe for burnout. I applied to PhD programs out of my senior year and got shut out. I think I probably could have managed had I got it, but looking back I think I'm better off with some time off. It gave me the chance to step back and refocus. I think it also allowed me to better clarify what I really want to do in grad school and if I (hopefully) get in this time around, I think I will be ready to hit the ground running, something I'm not sure would have been the case if I'd gone directly into a PhD program.

So, I was actually in your position three years ago--I applied to be a Fulbright ETA in Poland and to grad programs in English (although I went for an MA first instead of a PhD). I got the Fulbright, and my grad program of choice let me defer. Even if your program doesn't let you defer, based on my experience, the Fulbright is absolutely worth doing. If you end up having to play the application game again, a lot of places don't make you pay the application fee if you're currently on a Fulbright. That doesn't negate the amount of time it takes, but being a Fulbright will also make you a stronger applicant in the long run.  
Best of luck with both! 

If you get accepted to both, it's certainly worth inquiring as to whether the program would allow you to defer. I think a program would be more apt to allow a deferral for a Fulbright, but you never know.
 
If you don't have that option, you've got a tough choice ahead of you. You'll probably get mixed responses on here, but here are my two cents. As you say, graduate admissions are a crapshoot. This means that if you get accepted this time around, it's no guarantee that you will get accepted next time, even if you apply to the same schools with the same materials. This is because the applicant pool may have changed, the admissions committee may have changed, or there may now be too many students at that program with your area of interest. Things might also change in your favor or not at all. You have know way of knowing. Furthermore, applying to PhD programs is expensive (and time consuming), so it's worth thinking about whether you are able or willing to afford another round of applications.
 
All that being said, all else being equal, I'd say go with the Fulbright. I'm doing a similar program specific to the country I'm in, and I really believe there's nothing like living in another country for a year. You experience things and learn and grow in ways I think it's difficult to do otherwise. So, if you haven't had this opportunity yet, then I'd say take it (if you have, then your decision metric is a little different). The other point in it's favor is the value of a year off. There are lots of people who go straight from BA to PhD and do great for themselves. However, I also think it can be a recipe for burnout. I applied to PhD programs out of my senior year and got shut out. I think I probably could have managed had I got it, but looking back I think I'm better off with some time off. It gave me the chance to step back and refocus. I think it also allowed me to better clarify what I really want to do in grad school and if I (hopefully) get in this time around, I think I will be ready to hit the ground running, something I'm not sure would have been the case if I'd gone directly into a PhD program.

If you get accepted to both, it's certainly worth inquiring as to whether the program would allow you to defer. I think a program would be more apt to allow a deferral for a Fulbright, but you never know.
 
If you don't have that option, you've got a tough choice ahead of you. You'll probably get mixed responses on here, but here are my two cents. As you say, graduate admissions are a crapshoot. This means that if you get accepted this time around, it's no guarantee that you will get accepted next time, even if you apply to the same schools with the same materials. This is because the applicant pool may have changed, the admissions committee may have changed, or there may now be too many students at that program with your area of interest. Things might also change in your favor or not at all. You have know way of knowing. Furthermore, applying to PhD programs is expensive (and time consuming), so it's worth thinking about whether you are able or willing to afford another round of applications.
 
All that being said, all else being equal, I'd say go with the Fulbright. I'm doing a similar program specific to the country I'm in, and I really believe there's nothing like living in another country for a year. You experience things and learn and grow in ways I think it's difficult to do otherwise. So, if you haven't had this opportunity yet, then I'd say take it (if you have, then your decision metric is a little different). The other point in it's favor is the value of a year off. There are lots of people who go straight from BA to PhD and do great for themselves. However, I also think it can be a recipe for burnout. I applied to PhD programs out of my senior year and got shut out. I think I probably could have managed had I got it, but looking back I think I'm better off with some time off. It gave me the chance to step back and refocus. I think it also allowed me to better clarify what I really want to do in grad school and if I (hopefully) get in this time around, I think I will be ready to hit the ground running, something I'm not sure would have been the case if I'd gone directly into a PhD program.

Where did you get that impression?
Complit is by nature more interdisciplinary than English, so they do attract students with broader interests, but I haven't seen a program that doesn't *require* its students to do research in two primary languages (ie literatures). The fact that complit programs offer more theory courses rarely reflects on the dissertations of the actual students that they release. National literature department dissertations are these days just as theory-heavy as complit dissertations. If a person enters any graduate literature program without interest in theory, people will look at them askance.
As regards your question to me, 100-200 looks about like the number of the real competition, though that depends on how you define competitive. That's likely the number of people who submit all the required materials, and all of those materials are more or less coherent and polished, but the number of people that a department can actually see paying 100k in just salary for? Probably like the results of a typical faculty search, scaled appropriately: 10-20.

I think it's the language requirements that scare off a lot of applicants to comparative literature programs. Whether or not the students have a more "serious" interest in literature, there are certainly fewer students who are willing to acquire full proficiency in one foreign language and at least a solid reading ability in one or two more. So for that reason, the applicant pool is going to be naturally more self-selecting. 

I think it's the language requirements that scare off a lot of applicants to comparative literature programs. Whether or not the students have a more "serious" interest in literature, there are certainly fewer students who are willing to acquire full proficiency in one foreign language and at least a solid reading ability in one or two more. So for that reason, the applicant pool is going to be naturally more self-selecting. 

Hi all,
Last admissions cycle, you might have seen Jac Barcan around offering advice and predictions for the 2016 season. For the Fall 2017 cycle, I will be taking over the blog. I posted my predictions on the blog today. Each prediction is based on an average of the last ~5 release dates. I follow the methodology of my forebearers by occasionally omitting outliers or adjusting the average to fit patterns (e.g., if a university always releases decisions on a Friday but the average date falls on a Saturday, I round the average to the nearest Friday). Although some schools are based on five years worth of data, some are based on only one or two data points.
I followed Jac's lead by adding more unranked programs to the list (most notably, MSU, SUNY Binghamton, and SUNY Buffalo). My data points are gathered from the TGC survey, but I do not know how accurate all of the dates are. Hopefully down the line, the accuracy of our predictions will improve. I am always open to suggestions.
You can view the blog at philosophyadmissions.wordpress.com 
Once admissions notifications start to come out, I will be active on here and on the blog. I will check TGC for updates and update the blog accordingly at least once per day. If you have any tips you would like to contribute to the blog but do not want to post on TGC, please feel free to contact me on here or by email at philosophyadmissionsblog at gmail dot com.
Good luck with the rest of your applications.
Yours,
Sam

I feel less burnt out from apps than I do from the wait. I was shut out last year, and so I'm just sick of not knowing what my future looks like. I just want to hear back already. 

I mean they also know that what's being tested in the AW section of the GRE (whatever it is that it actually does test) has nothing to do with academic philosophy. Also, every published philosophy article these days is heavily edited with lots of feedback. So being able to do that well may actually be a sign of professionalization. 
Everything I've read indicates the the verbal and quantitative sections of the GRE are of some value to admissions committees (how much varies), but the the AW is pretty much useless unless perhaps it's alarmingly low.

Deeeep breaths!

First of all, I would go against conventional wisdom and suggest that you don't start thinking about plan Bs just yet. Give yourself until March 1st -- you should have a very good idea about whether you will or won't get into a program (or multiple) by then. Yes, some programs can notify late, and there's always the waitlist factor...but I'm personally giving myself until this date before I start to seriously look at alt-ac options. The way I see it, March 1st will give you at least 2.5 months to seriously focus on what's available before you graduate. I've got a paying gig at my program until July 1st, so it gives me four months. That should be enough time to truly gauge the lay of the land.

Secondly, there is a prevailing rhetoric that there are no jobs for people with Master's degrees in English. In my experience, that's simply not the case. I'll admit that there aren't as many obvious jobs (i.e. not the well-earning, dime-a-dozen jobs you can get with a Master's in a STEM field), but you can do well for yourself if you keep an open mind. Non-profit organizations are often quite open to people with humanities degrees. A quick search on idealist.org reveals a plenitude of options. To wit: I just did a quick search for jobs in D.C. and immediately saw a Deputy Director for the National Council for Traditional Arts position that I would be well-qualified for, given my education and experience. And that's literally on the first page of a general search. I'll admit that there's typically not as much money in NPOs as in other employment, but you can make a decent living and do good work. Most arts organizations are NPOs, and you'd be surprised at the range of employment possibilities within. Teaching high school is always an option, and prep schools are possibilities as well. Publishing / editing jobs are pretty scarce (and highly competitive), but many non-humanities jobs need good writers and editors as well. The Chronicle has featured a few articles recently that emphasize how businesses are targeting individuals with humanities degrees. This is nothing new...but perhaps there's more of an uptick.

Ultimately, there are definitely options. You might have to be more creative with your approach, and think outside of traditional avenues of employment, but take solace in knowing that you're far more employable with an M.A. in English than without. But seriously -- don't think about this stuff for another month or two, as it will just cause more undue stress!

I mean they also know that what's being tested in the AW section of the GRE (whatever it is that it actually does test) has nothing to do with academic philosophy. Also, every published philosophy article these days is heavily edited with lots of feedback. So being able to do that well may actually be a sign of professionalization. 
Everything I've read indicates the the verbal and quantitative sections of the GRE are of some value to admissions committees (how much varies), but the the AW is pretty much useless unless perhaps it's alarmingly low.

I mean they also know that what's being tested in the AW section of the GRE (whatever it is that it actually does test) has nothing to do with academic philosophy. Also, every published philosophy article these days is heavily edited with lots of feedback. So being able to do that well may actually be a sign of professionalization. 
Everything I've read indicates the the verbal and quantitative sections of the GRE are of some value to admissions committees (how much varies), but the the AW is pretty much useless unless perhaps it's alarmingly low.

The same way you calculate your cumulative GPA, except only using classes in your major. Your school should have a list somewhere for GPA values of letter grades. This is probably the most typical one:
A = 4.0
A– = 3.7
B+ = 3.3
B = 3.0
B– = 2.7
C+ = 2.3
C = 2.0
C– = 1.7
D = 1.0
F = 0
 
However, I have seen some schools that count an A- as 3.66, a B+ as 3.33, etc., so be sure to check how your school does it.
Then for each class in your major, multiply the GPA value for the grade you received by the number of credits. So, if you got an A- in a 5 credit class: 3.7 x 5 = 18.5
Once you've done this for every class in your major, add them all up and divide by the number of credits you had in the major. That will be your major GPA. 

Since you're so close, it probably doesn't matter that much. That being said, what I would do is give your writing sample to a trusted reader. Have him or her write down as many questions as possible (about the topic, about background information, about your arguments, about the examples or quotes us use, about your thesis, etc.). Pick the best, most insightful/helpful question and try to address it. Chances are that doing so will probably improve your paper and will easily bring you up to around 4000 words.

As far as I'm aware, the French theorists are still pretty popular in English departments. So if you primarily want to study English language literature, and just want to use French theorists, you're probably fine and even better off in an English department. Look for theory heavy departments, and take a look at staff interests. I'm sure you'll find a number of English programs that match your interests. Comp Lit departments are typically meant more for people who wanted to study literature across two or more languages. 

Mentioning POIs in your statement of purpose is (like the lit GRE) one of those things that gets a lot of attention here in the fora because it offers the illusion of a degree of control that is obtainable if only you'll research enough, which is a predictably attractive thing for people with excellent research skills but who find themselves in a situation (graduate admissions in literary study) where they have almost precisely zero control, ceteris paribus, over the outcome of the process. It also often seems like the only way applicants have of addressing "fit" (it isn't), which can otherwise appear wholly inaccessible and mysterious -- in addition to being ultimately up to the school in question to determine (it is).
The fact of the matter is that you can get into programs of all kinds by mentioning professors you want to work with, but you can often get into those same programs without mentioning any professors at all. Yes, on the balance, it's usually a good idea to indicate who you would see yourself working with, and why -- but that's not a laundry list of people you might want to take classes with; to the extent that it signals anything institutionally, it's a list of potential dissertation supervisors. But at the same time, programs know that people change, and that for all intents and purposes (at least in the US) no one ends up actually pursuing the course of research outlined in the SOP, and there's no expectation that they do so -- people even change historical period, much more often methodological approach, and even more often the actual topic! There's no magic number above which you'll seem dilettantish and unfocused and under which you seem inflexible and not able to work with anyone else. It really boils down to: if you can make a solid, well-researched case for a substantive connection between a professor's work and your own, make it; if not, don't.
(But, real talk, more than three is probably excessive, and the norm is closer to two.)

My PI's lab is on Danforth campus so it seems like it would be about a 15 minute bike through Forest Park and worse comes to worse, I can take an uber since the apartment is only 8 min away (according to google maps)
 
I'm just going to go ahead and post this here. It's the map I send to first year/prospective students who are looking for housing near the med campus (so it's highly med-campus focused). Hopefully it will help some people. If anyone is more familiar with the Danforth side, please feel free to update/save/repost a version of the map with more details on that side of Forest Park: 
 
Here's the map I refer to in this e-mail (let me know if you have trouble viewing it): https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=znSq18U6Bxo4.ka_fNS8CoCMQ   Just to orient you on the map: The medical campus is the green square to the right of forest park (large green rectangle). I've also labeled metrolink stops with red markers. There's a blue marker that marks the 4444 building, which is where many of the genomics labs are located (though many of them will be moving to the main campus in the next year or two).    I'm sure you've heard quite a bit about the Central West End (purple and red on map) during the interview process. It's a great place and I highly recommend looking there for apartments. Some of the older buildings have extremely reasonable prices, while some of the newer ones can get pretty pricey. The Del Coronado is (in my mind) the gold standard of what you will find in the CWE. It's new, super close to campus and has a parking garage...but its prices reflect those benefits. I do, however, think it serves as a good comparator when looking at other buildings. If you have a car I highly recommend putting affordable, provided parking high on your list; parking in the CWE without an assigned space or garage can be a bit crazy.    I live in the Debaliviere (DEB) area, which is north of forest park (Blue on map). It's right next to the metro link and I metro to work most days. If you live in either the CWE or DEB, there is a shuttle that runs every 30 mins from campus from 5pm-midnight:30 (M-F) that will take you directly to your door on your way home. I love living where I do. It's not as frequently-travelled as the CWE, parking is easier and I feel very comfortable walking around at night. The CWE is generally safe but it has a lot more foot traffic coming through.    There's an area between the CWE and DEB that is highlighted on the map in pink. A good number of students live there but it's not immediately adjacent to any metrolink stop so transportation may be a bit more difficult, though there are some beautiful buildings in that area.    Another place you might want to look is The Grove (brown pentagon on the map). There is lots of affordable housing in The Grove and it's an area that is getting nicer over the years...but it's not a place I feel 100% comfortable walking on my own at night. I do, however, know a lot of people who live there and have never had any problems. There are several apartments outside of the pentagon that are perfectly safe/nice but I can comfortably vouch for the brown-covered area being filled with happy graduate students.    Also highlighted in green is St. Louis University (in orange). There are tons of apartments in that area, but again, you have the commuting issue that isn't a problem in DEB or CWE. I also highlighted the Tower Grove area (in black) at the bottom right. This tends to be a place students move to in their second or third years. I wouldn't recommend it during your first year.   In yellow is the undergraduate (Danforth) campus and the Delmar Loop area. There are labs that some students may want to join on the Danforth campus and the Delmar loop is a great place to live. Unfortunately, I don't know much about the area. I recommend living close to the medical campus (green) for your first year at least since so many of your classes/journal clubs will be there.

I think there are (at least) two ways of understanding "atheoretical."
A theory is really just a particular way of looking at things. In this sense, you can't really avoid theory. No matter how hard you try to avoid it, you will always be coming to a text from a certain perspective, and thus you will have your own theory. So in this sense, being atheoretical is naively unrealistic. And given that we are all working from certain perspectives, it's important to critically examine what these perpectives are and how they inform our research and understanding of the texts we deal with. So avoiding theory altogether is a sort is almost certainly a mistake.
That being said, the idea of "theory" has often become associated with a particular group of thinkers and approaches (primarily French post-structuralism and it's descendents as well as an increasing role for gender and race theory). Given this understanding of "theory," the desire to be atheoretical is not all so strange. If you think, as I often do, that most of French post-strucutalism is a wrong turn in intellectual history, then you may have good reason to avoid it or at least to avoid atmospheres in which it is seen as essential to literary study (That being said, given its wide ranging influence, I think it's still a good idea to have at least a basic understating of the main ideas that are involved here.).

I'm not sure if it's that clear-cut. Columbia's endowment is large, but spending at the university has been/is somewhat controversial. They've come under fire for throwing money at massive building projects, while tenure-track positions in the Humanities haven't been filled, or have been replaced by sessionals. Likewise, there's a lot of money going towards the business and law schools, while the Core Curriculum is being comparatively underfunded. I guess it suffices to say that there's really a stranger political landscape beneath the overall wealth of the school. 

I think it's also worth pointing out that Columbia is one of the few schools of its calibre to offer standalone, unfunded MA programs in a number of Humanities disciplines, like English and Art History. Ironically, the other school that comes to mind here is Chicago, whose MAPH program is probably the best comparison. In both cases—and I've heard this from students in the PhD programs—the MA students are seen as subsidizing PhD candidate funding. Moreover, rejected PhD applicants are often funnelled into the MA programs. As cynical as it seems I don't think it's out of line to believe that Columbia and Chicago are fairly intent on maximizing the number of applicants to their PhD programs, so as to likewise maximize the $$$ coming in from their masters programs. 

I've gotten emails from a number of universities encouraging me to finish my application. I think they just want to make sure they get their application fee.

I don't think expanding it is necessarily a bad idea to expand it. Give to a few readers who you trust and ask for comments. Unless you're Gettier, they will probably point out a few areas where you could clarify something a bit better, explain your reasoning more clearly, or ward off a potential objection. This can easily give you a few extra pages and will probably make your paper stronger in the process.