Dr. Old Bill

Wait...I'm confused. Did you just say yesterday that you were accepted to a Scandinavian Studies program? That's what I was responding to. Yanaka was fretting over not having "time to wait" after you said you got in somewhere...

You do...unless you applied to Scandinavian studies programs.

Yes, you will undoubtedly encounter a few different perspectives in academia and even here on GC, but I completely second WildeThing on this. There is good reason to decry the state of the humanities right now, and good reason for many to say that the jobs are gone and won't be replaced...but if it turns out that you can't get a job in academia, few alt-ac options are going to particularly care if your specialization was on rhet/comp, Victorian literature, or Polynesian pygmy pamphlets. The Ph.D. in English will be what they see. Again, many will disagree with this, and I can't deny that there's some merit to trying to anticipate where the jobs will be...but six or seven years of chasing an elusive market sounds a lot less enjoyable than six or seven years chasing your interests. But YMMV.

Holy moly. Between you and @BlackRosePhD, these are some real horror stories. Sorry for your experience, JL. So, I'm not an advanced academic or a tenure track professor, but I have always made a point of responding to emails very quickly...and this was especially true for my English 101 students this semester. I encouraged them to email me if they ever had questions, and would let them send me drafts (so long as they had something specific for me to address). The reason for this is A.) because it is courteous, but mainly B.) because I think it is an instructor's responsibility to have open lines of communication with his/her students. This is the humanities, after all.

This is convoluted academese for "How did you hear about us?" They're just looking for the names and positions of people who may have sold you on U of C's program (i.e., if your advisor suggested it might be a good fit, you would use your advisor's name, credentials, and your school etc.).

I definitely hear you there, but you also have to look out for yourself in this situation. Many of the deadlines have already passed, and I'm guessing many more for you are coming up in 50 hours. There is such a limited amount of time, that you simply have to get letters however you can. Politely and respectably, of course, but just remember that your recommenders have failed you, not the other way around (I'm assuming there's no more to the story here, obviously). As you know, I was worried about the same thing happening myself until eight days ago, but your writers have gone beyond any reasonable limit. Again, don't worry about your other recommenders looking bad, because in a way they probably should look a bit bad right now. That kind of thing isn't looked upon too kindly by other faculty...

Good lord. I wish I could say or do something to help. Really, really sorry to hear about this. I think you have to get in their faces at this point. If they agreed to write for you, and they're not even giving you the common courtesy of responding to emails, maybe they have to see that you're a real, live human being, whose life is being drastically affected by their negligence. I know it's a busy time of year for everyone, but man, this stuff is life-contingent. They should be ashamed.

Oh. Yeah. No, you've got to make sure they get your materials as you intend them. I think you should contact the DGS. Be very polite, and just focus on the issue itself. The other admissions folks are just doing their jobs, and they may not have a firm handle on the ramifications of a "complete enough" application...but the DGS will. Just say that it seems to be a technical issue beyond your control, but you want the admissions committee to get the best picture of you possible, which is contingent upon a complete, gap-free application. Good luck!!

I suppose it depends on how specifically you're defining fit. If you have a highly specific focus and a narrow range of research interests, making sure you work with the few individuals who match all of those things would be key...and knowing their very specific approaches is surely equally important. The problem, of course, is that the more narrowly you define your interests, the less of a margin of error there is. Given that specializations and research interests evolve (i.e. most people don't wind up doing what they propose in their SOP), having a bit of wiggle room seems prudent. If your specialization is slightly less specific, it allows you to consider more overlap with more POIs. Remember that your SOP (as a whole) and WS are going to do more to situate you than a line or two about POIs. Knowing what your POIs have written is obviously quite important, but what I've been getting at in all of my posts is that it doesn't require a thorough knowledge of their monographs and other publication history. And frankly, it's probably more important that the POIs want to work with you than vice versa (I'm guessing that's a controversial comment, but I'm sticking by it!).

Then frankly, I'm not sure what you're asking in this thread. The bottom line is that reading the books of all (or even many) of your POIs is neither necessary or prudent in the application process. Familiarity with their work is important, but a thorough understanding, while academically beneficial, doesn't have much bearing on applications. In one of my SOPs I mentioned how a book that one of my POIs edited had an influence on my academic direction, but that was essentially one sentence out of thirteen SOPs in which I felt it prudent to mention a POI's book. There are just so many other higher-order aspects to the process that reading POI monographs is simply not an effective use of time. Honing WS, SOP, CV, getting good LORs, having materials that all work together, and figuring out which programs and faculty members are the best "fits" -- these are the time-consuming things that seem to be the most critical.

First, who says you're not supposed to email the POIs? While not necessary (I didn't do it), it's pretty common to do so. Some successful applicants swear by it -- establishing a connection long before the application is due. Remember that you're positioning yourself as a potential scholar in the field who is not going to be working for the POI, but with the POI. Second, most of the websites do give that kind of info (CVs are most helpful), but some basic research can reveal most of the pertinent info in fifteen minutes or so. You want to see their recent publications and research interests, or syllabi of courses they've taught in the past few years. What I'm getting at is that books take a long time to write, a long time to publish, and (obviously) have a long shelf life. Often a topic that a POI was interested in fifteen years ago will remain a basic interest today...but often that won't be the case. Think about your own research interests, for instance. Have you had the same general focus for two years? Four? Ten? It's a bit different, obviously, since we're all much earlier in our academic careers, but the central point remains the same: interests evolve.

Reading the books of multiple POIs is admirable from an academic perspective...but completely unnecessary for application purposes. You need to know what your POIs' current research interests are (as specifically as possible), their methodologies (i.e. marxist, structuralist, historicist), their general stature (no sense in wanting to work with a visiting assistant professor), and yes, some of what they've written. Remember that research interests evolve over time. Reading a POI's book from 2002 might have little or no bearing on what that POI is interested in now. There is zero expectation on the part of admissions committees that all applicants have a deep, thorough, sophisticated knowledge of their faculty. In fact, some successful SOPs don't mention a single faculty member at all. Again, if you are highly interested in the work of your POIs, reading their books will help you as a scholar, and might help you a little bit as an applicant, but as Yanaka says, your application will require very little direct reference to those professors, unless it is relevant and emerges organically in your SOP.

1.) @Warelin, you really are a wonderful contributor to GC. Your investigation into the underlying numbers (not just in this instance, but in many) is the kind of thing that most English majors don't do...to their great detriment. You've been a big help to a lot of folks, whether directly acknowledged or not...so thanks! 2.) Indeed, U of A's Strode Program is exclusively for early modernists and the stipend is considerably higher. It looks like they only accept one person per year, however, so yes...it must be quite competitive (he says, hopefully warding off any other strong early modern candidates...).

You guys are so kind. Truly! It's hard to say whether my writing style on GC is similar to my writing style in academic work. There must be a basic similarity at the very least (including my penchant for italicizing words for emphasis), and the most consistent comment I receive on papers is "thoughtful," which I consider a major compliment. In fact, I even told my 101 students that if I ever write "thoughtful" on their papers, they'll know they impressed me. (Most of them impress me anyhow, but still!) I've had a few people ask me about my "plan B," and I'm simply not thinking about it unless or until I have to. Why waste the energy? The way I see it, I've got a paying gig at my university until the end of June anyhow, and I'll have an answer to my Ph.D. hopes by March at the latest (barring the dreaded nothing-but-waitlist possibility), so I'll have a few months to look at plan B's. Anyhow, thanks again for your kind words. I fear we're derailing this thread, but at least it's got a couple of "gawwws" from me. ;-)

Aww. Thanks. I didn't mean it in a self-deprecating sense, however -- just a broad, realistic sense. I went through the cycle two years ago and was very fortunate to get a M.A. offer (that turned out to be a great option)...but that was one offer out of seventeen Ph.D. applications. In retrospect, I can think of a hundred things I did poorly during the last cycle (this despite being a regular on GC...hint hint), but the fact remains that even if I've learned a lot more in the past two years, if my writing sample isn't wowing adcomms, and my statement of purpose isn't really selling me as a scholar, then it's hard to see a future path to Ph.D. study and an academic life. All of this needs to be underscored by the fact that I feel very strongly about my application. Enough knowledgeable people have read my writing sample for me to know it's both good and unique, and enough people have seen my statement of purpose for me to know that it paints a strong picture of me as a scholar (and it works with my WS). My GRE scores are a bit lower than the most competitive applicants, though my GPA for both my B.A. and M.A. are quite high. I'm older than average, but some will likely see that as an advantage, just as some will see it as a detriment. In other words, I'm a strong enough candidate that I feel there's a good chance that I'll get in somewhere. But if I don't? After all of my learning and all of the preparation that has gone into these applications, I'm not sure trying again and again year after year is prudent. It's really not a self-value judgment, but a question of whether I'm the right kind of potential scholar these programs are looking for. Fortunately, however, I won't have to make that pronouncement for a few months, if I have to make it at all!

Yep, I hear that same voice. (Or it might be a different voice saying the same thing. Or perhaps it is the same voice, which might just prove the existence of god. Then again, that can't be the case because we're grad students and nothing providential ever happens to us.) Either way, I gave serious thought to adding UW-Madison, U of Toronto, and Stanford to my thirteen, but vetoed all of them for various reasons despite them being good "fits." I could justify the expense, but for me, going beyond a dozen or so felt a bit impractical. I know that odds are odds, but in a very real sense, if I'm not cutout for the thirteen places I applied to, I'm probably not Ph.D. material. It's a harsh possibility that I won't believe until I have to, but "it stands to reason" as they say.

Location is a very underrated component. I really, really wanted to be able to justify more applications to California schools, but there just weren't any good fits. Conversely, there might have been a couple of good fits in New York City, but I have a strong dislike of public transportation, and the NYC lifestyle (and cost!) isn't very appealing to me. Same goes for Boston. Before I applied to Alabama, I made absolutely certain (through asking former graduates) that the environment isn't overtly racist or otherwise prejudicial -- and it's not. But for me, that was a valid concern that transcended other "fit" factors. With a couple of mild exceptions, the programs I applied to are in places I would be comfortable living. Most are in colder climates than I prefer, but I suppose there have to be some tradeoffs...

I have a quotation near the top of my SOP. I introduce the quote, then put the full citation information in a footnote. I've seen it done this way in successful (i.e. accepted) English Ph.D. SOPs, so I just did it that way in my own.

Thirteen.

I don't think you were misled. Research experience may not be a major C.V. item at this level, but I think itemizing as much of your teaching experience as possible is wise. In your situation, then I would expect a longer C.V. What @poliscar meant (which I agreed with) is that it's not typical for a B.A. or M.A. applicant to need a C.V. beyond two pages.

I didn't apply to NYU, but that's the sort of thing I'd double-check on right away. Most programs (not all) send you automatic notifications when your recommender has uploaded his or her letter. If a day or two has passed, and your letter-writer thinks she's done, then check everything again. The other day, when I noticed that one of my writers had submitted all but one letter, I looked closely at the app again, and it turned out that I had transposed letters in her email address. Very easy mistake to make, but also an important one to catch...

Yup. I could have reduced mine to one, but I thought it would be prudent to list my poetry publication history -- a tough decision, and one I'll be second-guessing if I have a bad cycle, but seemed germane, given that my SOP and WS are both focused on poetry.

It depends. Ohio State is quite clear about it, and I'm sure I've come across one or two others that ask for two pages maximum as well (though the verbiage may have been on the application itself). I don't get the sense that the C.V. is all that important overall -- a few of the programs I applied to don't even require one.

I'm sure she is, Yanaka! No, I don't think the C.V. is the place for course descriptions, especially considering that many programs insist that the C.V. is a maximum of two pages. It's not a bad idea to have research interests in there somewhere, but if you really feel your courses need explication, I would draft a supplemental document for that. Most applications will allow you to upload additional materials not covered elsewhere in the app.

One program I applied to (a less common one in the South) has a very strange application process. You submit about half of your information, then wait a few days to get a link to start plugging in the rest of your info (SOP, WS etc.)...but you never actually submit anything. Once you've uploaded the documents, it's done. You can still go in and change the files after the fact, but you don't actually click "submit" anywhere, and there are no application proofs etc. I had to double- and triple-check to make sure I had done everything correctly. In other words, we all hear of rolling admissions, but this is more like a rolling application...