Dr. Old Bill

Meh. While your last point sounds valid, I think it assumes too much. Surely you've had to fulfill prerequisite courses in fields you have no interest in, and surely you've had to write an uninspired, yet objectively unobjectionable paper. It sounds like that's the case here. I wouldn't assume that a "too broad and unoriginal" (OP's words) paper in a course outside the realm of one's interests -- a paper that still garnered an "A," mind you -- means one cannot write good or publishable essays. I would be far more concerned if it was in the OP's particular field. It's not, so I wouldn't necessarily take it as emblematic of his/her writing in general.

I would do it. Standardized exams suck. I don't think I'm hyperbolizing when I say that nobody likes them as a benchmark for grad school. The problem is that the GRE general is indeed used that way, and while it is correct that other factors in your application weigh heavily, there's something about the starkness of a number that makes for an easy snap assessment. 158/80th percentile on the verbal is a "fine" number, and in most fields it would be good enough...but bumping it up to the 160s (and/or the 90th percentile) will help to erase any of those snap judgments. When I was talking to my advisor (who routinely sits on admissions committees) about grad school applications a few weeks ago, I asked her how important adcomms see GRE/GPA etc., and she said something along the lines that it doesn't matter much...because everyone's numbers are excellent. The subtext of this is, of course, that those who don't have competitive numbers will invariably stick out. Again, not necessarily something that can't be overcome by other strong elements to your application, but the takeaway is this: if you can do anything to improve your overall application, and the overall picture of the academic you, do it. Retaking the GRE once will cost you $200, four hours of test time, and several hours of study time...but if you can bump up your verbal score by a few points (or ten percentage points), it will give you peace of mind as you're waiting during the seemingly inexorable period between application submission and the gradual trickle of acceptances and rejections. For what it's worth, I've taken the GRE general three times in the past 2.5 years. My best verbal happens to be from my first sitting of the test, despite studying hard and taking (and doing very well on) countless practice tests prior to the other two sittings. My verbal is 162, which puts me right at the 90th percentile, but I don't regret retaking the test both times, simply because I was wanting to give myself more peace of mind with a higher score. In my heart of hearts I know my score shouldn't hurt me -- I have an excellent vocabulary, which is on display in my Writing Sample -- yet there is still a part of me that passively considers taking it a fourth time. Which would be ridiculous. But in a highly competitive process wherein admission offers are made to under 10% of applicants, anything you can do to help yourself in the long run should be done (in my opinion, of course). Good luck!

If you have a good rapport with her, it's probably best to talk to her directly about her expectations -- both for this paper in particular, and for your future writing in general. If she gave you a lot of "vague guidelines for writing a good paper," she is clearly interested in you and your work. Make the most of it! Like @echo449 says, it's not uncommon to write an "A" paper that requires a lot of revision. Speaking for myself, even though all of my graduate papers have received either an A or A-, I only think that one of them (possibly two, given enough revision) is potentially publishable, and that only three (of eight or nine) are "good" papers. An A is often given in recognition of a number of factors -- general engagement with an interesting topic, quality writing and argumentation, demonstration of strong research etc. None of those things necessarily mean that a paper is innovative or particularly interesting unto itself...just that it's very well done in a broader sense. It strikes me as a little odd that your professor would want you to revise a ten-page paper (I could see it for one fifteen pages or longer), but your best bet is to talk to her personally to find out her intentions.

I just retook it, and scored a bit WORSE than the last time. My scores were already fine, and a strong argument could be made that I didn't need to retake it at all, but I thought that perhaps a couple of years of additional academic immersion might bump up my verbal to the loftier heights of the high-160s, rather than the more pedestrian low-mid 160s. Alas, it was not to be. So another $200 and multiple hours of studying down the drain. It's annoying, because I truly have an excellent vocabulary, but I suppose standardized testing just isn't my cup of A.) Coffee B.) Warm water C.) Tea D.) Ovaltine E.) Hot cocoa

Almost everything I've heard suggests that LORs don't weigh very heavily. There probably is a bit of relative prestige -- a Big Name LOR might garner an extra eyebrow-raise or chin-stroke than a general scholar LOR -- but it's the whole package an adcomm looks at, particularly the SOP and WS. With a few exceptions, LORs are ALL positive, saying the same great things about the candidate, which means they basically cancel each other out.

Well, the good news is that it's August -- you can retake it in a few weeks, and will be able to use the "Score Select" option to just send your best scores to your programs. Hopefully you didn't opt to send the scores to the four "free" institutions after the test was complete. Practically speaking, the GRE is absurd, but realistically you'll want to get your verbal into the 160s for best consideration. The CliffNotes guide to the GRE General seems to be quite helpful (I'm retaking the test on Tuesday), and a fellow grad student who teaches GRE prep on the side strongly encourages the Barron's book. See if you can get one or both from a library, or buy if necessary, then give it another shot! It sucks to have to throw down another $205 and 3.5 hours, but as crestfallen as you may be, at least you didn't leave it too late. There's ample time to bump up that score! Good luck!

Yes, your GRE general should be perfectly fine for almost any program, so long as your other materials are strong. As for your second comment, to add my two cents to @poliscar, I firmly believe that until you can prove your academic chops at the graduate level, you simply can't avoid the canon. You can certainly have opinions on it (there was a great, long thread on GradCafe from two or three years back about revising the canon...it's worth looking up), but you'll have to have a functional acceptance of it, at least. There are simply too many scholars in virtually ALL good graduate programs who work in canonical fields for you to get by without having some sort of engagement with the canon...at the outset, at least. I'm not at all saying that this is the case with you -- just that you might not enjoy it (and I really don't blame you), but you have to accept it. Incidentally, I'm not a fan of high theory or symptomatic reading, but that hasn't stopped me from dropping Foucault etc. into my work from time to time.

I have yet to see a comprehensive list, though there have been many threads here at GradCafe that give a pretty good overview of programs that do and do not require the subject test. Most of the very top schools according to USNews (Berkeley, Yale, Princeton, Stanford etc.) require it. Your best bet, however, is to just do due diligence in researching programs that would be great fits for you, and note which ones require the subject test in the process. Once you have a healthy list of potential programs, do the math on how many require the subject test, then figure out whether you can comfortably get through the cycle without having to take it. It is admittedly a shitty test, and if you CAN effectively avoid it, you should...but it really comes down to how many programs (and POIs) are doing what you want to do. If many of those programs require the GRE lit test, it's in your own best interest to bite the bullet and give $150, three hours, and a chunk of your soul to ETS.

Yep! Northwestern is on my shortlist, with Shannon and Evans my two main POIs. Thanks for chiming in!

Welcome, @aob981! Just a few thoughts... I'm a little concerned that your WS is centered on film. This might be an issue if your stated focus in your SOP has nothing whatsoever to do with film studies (and it sounds like it wouldn't). One of the most common mantras I hear about applications -- something repeated by my advisor yesterday -- is that your WS should be closely related to the field you are interested in, and that it should work in tandem with your SOP. The way I see it, there are a couple of ways that you can mitigate the issue. You could, of course, put together another WS, or make judicious edits that position it closer to your interests. I'm not sure I would recommend that. The other option is that you can gear your SOP slightly toward the material mentioned in your WS, and find programs that have POIs you want to work with, but also see if there are some who might be interested in the film-based ideas in your WS. One important thing to always keep in mind is that the only purpose of your application (and all its materials) is to get an offer of admission. What happens once you are admitted into the program is completely up to you. If admitted, you could suddenly decide that American literature is not for you, and that your real passion lies in Restoration comedy. It might raise an eyebrow or two, but no one would block you from doing that. In other words, there is nothing particularly disingenuous about tailoring your application materials to give you the best chance at acceptance. Based on what you have said above (and remembering that this is all I have to go on...), you might be best served by getting an M.A. first. I would have hated this advice two years ago, when I applied to nothing but Ph.D. programs (yet gratefully accepted a "funded" M.A. offer). But while I still think that I could have done well in a Ph.D. program sans M.A., going through a year of graduate-level work and engaging in the professionalization etc. that comes with it has proven to be extremely valuable. It has also gone a long way toward sharpening my academic focus -- my era has remained the same (early modern / Renaissance), but my specific research interests have changed completely. In other words, getting an M.A. first can allow you to really get a sense of the kind of research you want to do and what kind of scholarship really interests you. If you are currently a bit torn between American Studies and English programs, shorter-term graduate-level work in one or the other might clear the picture for you. Lists of funded M.A. programs are elusive, but I recall seeing some efforts at compilation here on GradCafe in the past two years. I'm guessing that doing an advanced search for "funding" in thread titles in this form should uncover a few of those threads... It shouldn't be an issue that you've been out of school for three years, nor that your recommenders aren't well-known. As for contacting POIs, there are different schools of thought. I know of people who made a point of contacting someone at every program they applied to. I myself contacted a few a couple of years ago. Still, I asked this very question to my advisor yesterday (who has been on a number of Admissions Committees over the years), and she said that for her, it had literally no effect. YMMV. I'll chime in more later if others haven't done so in the meantime...

Lots of great questions there, and since I'm not a rhet-comp person, I'll leave most of them for others to answer. However, at the risk of banging the UMD drum a little too loudly and a little too often, it really sounds like UMD's M.A. program, with its certificate in rhet-comp, is a good potential fit for you. You're right that most strong rhet-comp programs take only candidates who have an M.A. in hand. That said, I know of several people at UMD who entered as M.A. students with an ostensible interest in literature, only to wind up focusing on rhet-comp over the course of their studies. This is bolstered by a lot of early (i.e.: first year) teaching opportunities. UMD really is one of the leaders in the field, and it's about a 3.5 hour drive from NYC...so it's definitely worth your consideration (in my slightly-biased-yet-still-humble opinion).

Sounds like you and I are on a virtually identical timeline, @erosanddust! I just met with my advisor (who is also one of my letter-writers) this afternoon to glean any tips or pointers from her with regard to the SOP (she has been on a bunch of admissions committees). So now is the time to officially start drafting the SOP. My Writing Sample is solid, but I'll need to edit once I get some more feedback on that as well. And yes...I have a shortlist of 14 programs that I will whittle down to 10 - 12. There are still a few I need to research more, but I can't see myself going over 12 this time, which is scary for the same reasons you state... So it begins indeed!

Alright folks...it's August 1st, which means that the first application deadlines (Northwestern, UCLA etc.) are a mere four months away! How are we doing? Where are we at? What is our status? And who are we??? Seriously, let's start talking about this!

That won't work, unfortunately. The test is offered in September, October, and April -- three dates, and three dates only. The problem with having a "retake" strategy is that you won't get your September scores in time to register for the October test. In other words, you'll need to schedule the test twice if you think you'll need to take it twice. There isn't enough time to get your September scores back, say "whoops, I'd better retake this...," and actually schedule a retest. I'm not sure what the precise reason for this is on ETS' part, but it's probably got something to do with a cost benefit analysis or something. Certainly money-based. Long story short -- you've got one crack at it for Fall 2017 admissions. There are many. More and more all the time, in fact. Brown, UMich, Vanderbilt, Ohio State, UNC-Chapel Hill... Others say they "recommend" the subject test, but apparently won't penalize you if you don't take it (UPenn and Notre Dame are two examples). In other words, if you have a fairly general field with plenty of scholars across many programs (like 20th century Americanists etc.), you can certainly apply to a dozen or more great programs without having to sit the GRE subject test. For many, however, the subject test is almost essential, simply because certain scholars happen to work in programs at schools that require it. In other words, don't take it if you don't feel you have to...but depending on your field, it may or may not be to your advantage to take it.

Thanks! Yes, while I don't dabble much in writing poetry anymore, I think that having the publications on there does a few things: it shows that I was active in writing-related activities prior to entering academia, it shows that I am familiar with the publication process (and the inherent rejection), and it shows that many people -- scholars included -- have found my work worth publishing. There's not a heck of a lot of overlap between creative writing and academic writing, but to me I think having it on my C.V. highlights a part of me. Of course, that's the problem -- I'm thinking from my perspective, and I don't really know whether my perspective is correct or not. I suspect a case can be made for keeping my creative writing publications on OR off the C.V...

While I can definitely appreciate the importance of the page-length discussion, does anyone have any more input or insight on my original question?

Yup...they guarantee funding, as in a stipend...but that doesn't include tuition. So they pay you, but you still have to pay to attend, if that makes any sense.

Like EmmaJava, I'm also not your target audience...but just remember that Canadian schools don't waive tuition. It's a shame, as there are one or two programs I would seriously look at applying to if that weren't the case (especially since I myself am Canadian), but even though tuition is generally lower in Canada, that's still a consideration.

So I'm updating my woefully outdated C.V., and I'm starting to wonder about whether I should continue to include my non-academic publications. In my pre-academic life, I was very involved in poetry, and ended up with scores of poems in various journals...many of which are highly regarded journals run by universities or academics etc. Still, as my academic focus has drifted away from poetry, is the inclusion of a section of poetry publications a bit irrelevant at this point, or does it demonstrate that I have at least been active in publication cycles etc.? In other words, what does the inclusion of a bunch of poetry publications on an academic C.V. say to an admissions committee? On a slightly unrelated note, I would love to get a sense of what Ph.D. applicants generally put on their C.V.s. There are many examples available through basic Googling, but the more input, the better. For instance, I was on the organizing committee for the yearly English conference, was appointed to the dean's advisory board etc., but I'm not sure how to list things like that without it looking very junior high...

That's good to know. I checked out a copy of his Renaissance Clothing and the Materials of Memory a couple of months ago, but it was recalled before I had a chance to read it. Still, that's definitely the sort of scholarship that intrigues me. Alright. I'll definitely dig more into UMich. I applied there in my last cycle a couple of years ago, and though my interests were quite a bit different then, I remember they had a wealth of scholars that appealed to me. As for Mary Floyd-Wilson...definitely! She's one of the main reasons I'll be applying to UNC-Chapel Hill. I've read most of English Ethnicity and Race in Early Modern England, and her work is definitely key to my interests. I will be sure to check out Historical Affects... soon as well. Good to know about OSU! Kastan is definitely one of the key POIs at Yale, and I've come across Hackel's name a bit. I'm just not sure if UCR has a large enough early modern department to make applying worthwhile, but we'll see. I spent a month in Riverside, and lived in nearby Rancho Cucamonga for several months back in 2001, so I know and like the area, at least. As for UVA...something has always put me off about their program. I can't put my finger on what, but I've never got a good vibe. Perhaps that's a stupid reason to neglect a seemingly great fit of a program, but when combined with my reluctance to move back to Virginia (for a bevy of reasons), I'm probably going to pass on UVA once again. I don't think I would apply to Canadian programs, since the funding (rather, the tuition remission) situation isn't great. Then again, being Canadian myself, it would seem to make a lot of sense, since I wouldn't need to worry about visas etc. We'll see. Ah! Yes, I truly love Coriolanus, and agree that it is woefully underrated. While it is often difficult (and slightly juvenile) to bandy about the term "favorite" when it comes to works in one's field, I have no issue with saying that Coriolanus is my favorite Shakespeare play. Its themes speak to me more than any other. I find it interesting that the first two acts of Timon of Athens almost achieve an inversion of those same themes, though the utter lack of development in acts three through five undermine its effectiveness as a play. I had an independent study lined up with Amanda Bailey, who is also very interested in Coriolanus and the political sphere in Shakespeare...but she had to back out when it became clear that she would be named Chair of the department. So I'm still looking for someone to explore Coriolanus at length with, but may have to just accept that any project on the play will have to be self-guided.

Thanks Ramus! Yeah, so far UPenn looks like the closest fit for me. My eventual WS significantly engages with two of Loomba's writings, and one of my LOR writers (the professor whose course I wrote my WS paper for) turned me on to Stallybrass, who is clearly right up my alley as well. I don't know as much about Rebecca Bushnell and Rita Coleman, but it seems that they would be complementary, at least. One of my main specializations is historicist race theory (hence the Loomba connection), and slightly more broadly, geohumoral theory and the body etc. Michael Schoenfeldt is one of the leading figures in that sub-field, though I'll have to give UMich some more thought / research before I go down that road. Some of the most interesting recent scholarship in that field comes from professors at SLACs etc. though (like Kim F. Hall at Barnard College). I'm also developing a strong interest in the history of the book, and material culture more generally. Theresa Coletti stoked that interest, and I'll be taking a course with Kellie Robertston in the fall on the effect of the Gutenberg Press on print culture...and I find I'm more excited about that course than any other so far. OSU has Sarah Neville, Alan B. Farmer, and Richard Dutton...all of whom dabble quite extensively in that area. A third, slightly unrelated interest of mine is in Shakespeare's treatment of the fickle masses...particularly in his ancient Greece and Rome plays (with Coriolanus and Julius Caesar my favorite examples...though Timon of Athens and others deal with the topic directly as well). Still, that's probably more of a long-term project for me than something I need to think about engaging with at this stage. P.S. Thanks for those names, @Warelin. Greenblatt is indeed one of the "rock stars" of the New Historicism, as is Stephen Orgel, though they're probably too far beyond the approach of graduate students at this point. I also won't be applying to Harvard for personal reasons. Stanford, on the other hand...

I've started my Ph.D. program research in earnest, and have assembled a healthy list of POIs and programs that would seem to "fit" quite well with my interests...but since it has been so quiet here lately, I figure I might as well crowdsource a little bit to get a sense of people / programs I might have overlooked. I have two or three more specific interests, but all of them would seem to fit under the more general umbrella of historicism (or, dare I say New Historicism) in early modern drama. UPenn has shot to the top of my list because of people like Peter Stallybrass and Ania Loomba (who is not as much of a historicist, but has written extensively on the context of race in Shakespeare), while Yale, Berkeley, OSU, Rutgers, and UNC-Chapel Hill are all on my shortlist as well. Still, I'm sure there are many others out there that I haven't thought about or haven't been able to research as yet...so if any of you happen to know of professors who are still doing New Historicism (whether they use that slightly outmoded term or not), I would love to hear about them!

Oh, most definitely. One of my letter-writers is my advisor, and she helped me get a plum GAship in the medieval / early modern field committee. I actually got an A- in her course, which vexed me greatly, but she assured me that she gives most students in that course an A-. In other words, she's simply a hard grader. Beyond that, she was more than happy to write on my behalf. Another letter-writer is a professor I had in the fall, and we have a great rapport. He's sort of an "up-and-comer" in my field, and had me send him the paper I will be using as my writing sample. And the final letter writer is the professor whose class fostered that writing sample in the first place...and the type of research and specialization she does is closely aligned with my own probable interests, and happens to be a fairly new line of scholarship. I have made a point of being open and friendly with all three professors (well, all of my professors period), and I have no doubt that all of them can speak confidently about my writing, my personality, and my suitability as an academic. Not to get off topic, but if I were to give advice to anyone starting out in a graduate program, it would be to speak up, be friendly, make a good impression, and get noticed -- not in an obnoxious way, but simply as an active and engaged participant. If a professor asks a question in class, or puts something out for discussion, be the person who takes him/her up on it if the post-question pause starts to linger. Professors appreciate that, and it makes a good impression. I'm sure a great many quiet students have gone on to do great things, but in my experience, the more actively engaged you are, the more a professor will want to work with you and help you.

Yeah, when I was in the application cycle two years ago, I started my program research in late February, had my SOP and WS squared away by the end of July, and literally completed several applications on the day they first opened up. I was also in touch with POIs, and my letter-writers had all finished their letters by mid-November. I was truly on the ball. While I got into a great M.A. program that I'm very happy with, I wouldn't consider it a "successful" application cycle, despite all my advance preparation. This time around, I have yet to even start really researching programs. A large part of that is because I've been working, taking graduate courses (including a summer course that I'm currently finishing up a 15-page paper for), moving, and...well...separating from my wife of seven years (don't worry, it was amicable etc.). So everything has been put off by necessity, yet I don't feel too concerned about it. I'm hoping to start my program research next week, and have already talked to my three letter-writers, and already have my probable WS (barring revisions). I'll be retaking the GRE subject test in September (yes, I know conventional wisdom here is to NOT retake it, but I'm doing it anyway), and will probably retake the general GRE at some point as well. At this point in my life, I just want to make sure all the t's are crossed and the i's are dotted. If I don't get into a Ph.D. program this time around, I suppose I'll have to think of a plan B...but who wants a plan B? Long story short: @sarahbethke and @mk-8's advice is right on the money. There's no one way to navigate this process successfully. Whatever works best for you should work.

More than any of the MFA-related statistics, I'm blown away by the male-centric stats. That's seriously disheartening...