unræd

No, I'll be taking the subject test on the 27th September, and the general ones the weekend after. Several of us are going to have a little online drinking/commiseration party afterwards, I've decided! Who's in? (And no, I think "sitting" is only really more correct if you're a bit of a pompous blowhard. Which I can be, so it's all good. )

I already said this in another thread, but since it's so delightful to have another Anglo-Saxonist about: welcome! Also, your color research sounds absolutely fascinating. In re languages, I also wouldn't sweat it. The intensive Latin shows drive given your compressed timeframe, and given the way OE courses are structured at most departments in the US, I don't think it's at all unusual for applicants to have only had two semesters of OE by the time they graduate. Another way to beef up languages are departmental reading groups--does your university have an Old English or a Latin reading group? (If not, you could always start one, which makes for a lovely paragraph in the SOP!) Can I ask what you've been using to teach yourself OE over the summer? Anything fun you've been reading? Do you know what book you'll use for the fall? I assume the spring class is the standard reading of Beowulf, yes? Sorry for all the questions, but I am always up for a discussion of the language and its magnificent quirks!

Damn it! 9?! I kid, I kid. Welcome, hreathemeus! (I'm on vacation, and the computer I'm using can't make an eth--forgive me!) I'm struggling with the same issue--I love the program I'm in (at a big R1 state school w/ two Anglo-Saxonists in the department), and would be happy to stay there. The faculty is encouraging me to apply there, and I am, but I know there is that certain stigma! In re the GRE, from what I know of my own department, scores are often used to determine funding (or, rather, to apply for funding on your behalf)--but, to be blunt, you do already have an excellent score. And as far as actual admission itself goes, I wouldn't sweat the quant--to add to viviandarkbloom's experience, I have a prof (who finished his PhD relatively recently, from Notre Dame) who answered straight C for the entire quantitative portion, and did just fine in admissions, obviously. (NB: I'm not suggesting anyone do that.) Obviously one should do everything one can to make the application as strong as possible, so I totally get your impulse to take again, but I wouldn't sell your current self short! Will you be sitting the subject test this fall?

While languages aren't everybody's boat and the necessities do vary by discipline, I think this advice--approaching the req with a spirit of "well, this will make me a better scholar!"--is salutary, given both the amount of criticism and theory that appears in other languages as well as the ability to make sharper arguments about the technical features of English texts that comes with experience in another language. Obviously I'm a bit biased, since one of the reasons my subfield is my subfield is the strong linguistic emphasis--in part because I think languages are just plain fun. (I found out yesterday that I may need to add a paragraph to my writing sample discussing a bit of Old Saxon, and I've been giddy ever since.) I know it's ridiculously excoticizing/xenophilic of me, but I think there's something so, so enjoyable about being able to pick up a piece of Old English, say, and just read it.

Didn't seem a bit scrambled at all, Felibus! I think NYU is the only school I'll be having to edit mine down for (but once again, I stress "think"--my initial thought, with Wyatt's Torch, was that Yale can deal w/ an extra few pages, but perhaps that's mistaken?) and they specifically say "don't send an excerpt, but edit down," etc. But I'm curious how to navigate this, too!

They'll have to court us! We'll each be able to get our top choice!

I'm using a paper I wrote for a graduate Old English seminar I sat in on last spring. I'm done with all the piddly editing, but there are a couple of paragraphs the prof whose class it was for would like me to add, and they'll require a bit more research. It's currently 18 pages (not including works cited, or the material I have to add)--which is a fine length for most places, but which I'll have to cut down to twelve (12!!!) for NYU. It's not on a topic related to the more specific theoretical interests in my writing sample, but it is on the narrow historical (Anglo-Saxon, obviously) period I intend to focus on--and is the best, longest thing I've written, plenty of language work, etc etc. I'd also be very much interested in an exchange, and hope to be all done with it by the end of August, as well!

I second (third, fourth) your "UGH" in re the subject test. And WT's right about your statement of general application antsy-ness; that's exactly the feeling--it's like Christmas morning, only with the possibility of chainsaws. The job's overwhelmingly clerical desk sitting. I don't get to help with research per se, but I'm involved in a lot of digitization--the manuscript slides of one prof and the back issues of a journal put out by the Medievalist organization for which one of our profs is an officer. It's still been a great opportunity for me to get to know a lot of the profs before I've had them in class, though, and keep in touch with them after. (Not that, like, that's the reason I took the job or anything. No, not at all. Nothing like that.) I covet your Keller and Russel--I've never worked with it, but it looks amazing!

Felibus--how exciting! I've done intensive summer language study twice before--it's draining, really just extraordinarily mentally taxing, but it's so cool to look back and reflect on how much progress you've made in a short time. What text did your Latin program use? My summer was also pretty uneventful, and also a weird mix of productivity and sloth. On the one hand, I made some great progress on my applications--got my SOP drafted and through the initial stages of review, made some recommended edits to the paper I'm using as my writing sample, researched schools and (sort of, but every time I say this it up and changes!) finalized my list, registered for the GRE, etc. I've also been doing a lot of background theory reading, as well as doing some reading practice in a couple of my languages. I've also been working my part time job at my school's Medieval/Renaissance Studies center (but not doing anything particularly interesting or edifying). On the other hand, studying for the subject GRE has been like pulling teeth, only more painful, because it's in fits and starts, and I haven't done nearly as much language study as I'd hoped/planned on, either. I too, have been drawn in to the seductive timesink that is streaming television--ugh. Proflorax--if I hadn't just rewatched the entirety of The West Wing fall semester, I'd be right there with you! I'm also, frankly, really damn antsy for this semester to get underway--not only because I'm excited for my classes, but because I want to put all these application shenanigans behind me. There have been some high points, though--family and friends coming out to visit us, and a couple of mini-vacations here and there when my partner's crazy work schedule has allowed, and another one coming up before classes start!

I'd up vote that--it made me spit out some coffee--but I'm out of votes for the day!

Hah! That's not at all what I meant, WT--if anything, I envy you your preparation! Apparently the name is the one part of your information you can't edit--you need to cancel the test, create a whole new profile and reregister. Blargh. I'm going to give them a call Monday, just in case!

I don't have the ticket problem, but I'm irrationally freaking out about the name I used for registration. My IDs all read Given Name: FIRST MIDDLE Last Name: LAST My GRE subject admissions ticket reads: FIRST M LAST, and my general GRE test appointment confirmation just reads FIRST LAST. WT--you've taken the GRE several times already. Have you had this issue? Has anyone else here? I know they can be sticklers (to choose the most anodyne description possible) for names that are on IDs.

Felibus, it is great to have another medievalist applying at the same time, and I'm sure there'll be more! And: pshaw. It sounds like your preparations are just fine! I know your question was addressed to Cloud and Arthurian (as it should be, given their past success in admissions!), but I know a lot about the program at Toronto--I've had four profs (two Anglo-Saxonists, a Classicist who works on medieval reception history, and a Middle English guy, two of whom are letter writers for my app) who are products of their Medieval Studies program and have spoken about it w/ me in detail, I've researched it a ton, and it's kind of my dream program, even though I probably won't be applying there for financial reasons (cue tiny, tiny violins). I can't give you advice as to whether or not they take applicants w/ less Latin coursework or whether or not you should apply (I will give it to you anyway, though, and spoiler alert: I think you should), but I can tell you what I know about the program and its language reqs. Which Ph.D. are you looking at--Medieval Studies or English? The Medieval Studies program does place a huge emphasis on Latinity. As I'm sure you're aware, Toronto's Medieval Latin test is kind of the 'industry standard' that a lot of other schools use, and the Ph.D. program requires the passage of their Level One Latin exam for registration (seriously--you show up and are given a test, two hours translation w/ no dictionary, in September, and if you don't pass it, that's it) and requires you to complete the Level Two exam as quickly as possible. The Classicist told me that he'd had MA students (in Latin!) who were comfortable w/ their linguistic skills (this is at a big R1 state university with a pretty strong Classics program) struggle to make it. For shits and giggles and edification, here are past tests. Because of this languages are, I hear, really a factor in admissions (much as in Notre Dame's MS program). But even your advisor's "rarely" is not "never," and pace her you do have some Latin (and time to acquire more), and it's an amazing program, so why the hell not apply? I know you're done w/ your MA program, but any chance you could take more Latin courses this year (or even do more self tuition--there are some great Medieval Latin resources out there) and work a paragraph into your SOP about taking steps to increase your linguistic preparation? Do you have any other relevant languages that you could point up in your SOP, as well? Do you do any work in your writing sample w/ Latin sources in translation that you could shift back into Latin (or your own translations) to show your facility working with the language? A few footnotes you could add that quibble with a translation on some minor philological point? If you're considering the English Ph.D., though, then obviously the Centre for Medieval Studies' reqs above aren't an issue! If you aren't considering the English program, I'd encourage you to; one of my profs encouraged I apply to both programs simultaneously, since the English Ph.D. can act as sort of a 'back door' into the resources of Toronto's CMS--you can still take the Centre's classes, be a part of a vibrant community of medieval scholars, etc etc etc. The English program places less of an emphasis on languages--no scary tests to sit before you sign up for classes! Another thing to consider is period. I can't speak to this directly in relationship to Toronto, but I know generally that there is a strong difference in language background required depending on whether you work with OE or ME literatures. All the Anglo-Saxonists profs I've had say they don't accept anyone w/o at least two years of Latin; my university (no Toronto, admittedly, but which has a very strong group of medievalists--six tenured faculty, about 3-4 medievalists in the incoming grad school cohorts the past few years) regularly accepts people to work on Middle English texts whose Latin is either in its infancy or even still just a glint in their philological eyes, and it sounds like your interests fall later rather than earlier. I hope this helps!

This is so very true! I've been brushing up on my academic German over the summer (mostly by using past language exams from various Medieval Studies centers and hacking away at articles of interest) and it's amazing how much of the field-specific vocabulary repeats. I couldn't really talk about the weather in German, but by God if I don't have the word for "manuscript transmission" down pat.

Welcome, felibus! I'm the other 2015 medievalist applicant of which Cloudofunkowning knows. Although I may be the odd duck out: as my screen name indicates, my interests lie in pre-Conquest England. Within that narrower scope, though, they're pretty catholic, exploring everything from issues of gender and sexuality to more traditional philological topics (linguistic cruces, word studies, textual issues, etc) in all kinds of Old English texts. Further afield, I'm also interested in broader cultural comparanda for the Anglo-Saxon period--works in Old Norse, Old Irish (although I have neither of those languages yet!), as well as (of course) the Anglo-/Hiberno-/continental Latin contexts. I'm applying straight out of undergrad. I'm all registered for the subject and general GREs in late September/early October--we should plan on some online post-test commiseration!--and am currently editing my writing sample. My SOP is off w/ professors after a couple of read throughs from other advisors (Cloudofunknowing was gracious enough to take a look at it, as well), so for the moment it's just subject GRE studying for me. (And in re Catherine of Siena, 'astonishing' is certainly one word for it!)

WT, I have been able to log in and access (and print) my subject test admissions ticket--I received an emailed link to it the day after I registered. The weird thing is that the registration confirmation email says "a ticket will be mailed to you in X weeks," while the email I received with the link to the ticket says that no paper ticket will be mailed!

I'm glad it was helpful!

Aside from the more general concerns cloudofunknowing mentioned about not showcasing your ability to do solid work in a given field, there are strong practical reasons revolving around the way at least some adcomms work that make it beneficial (but not required) for your writing sample to be in your period/field of interest--the DGS at OSU has put up a handy explanation of why here. The advice to submit your best work holds--I have a professor who got into the most competitive medieval studies program in the country with a paper on a 19th century topic--and the purpose of the writing sample is primarily to show that you can sustain an argument and engage in a critical conversation, but If you say you want to study X in your SOP, at some schools your app will immediately go to that school's X faculty, who aren't really as prepared to evaluate you based on your writing sample in Y. That being said, I know you're applying to rhet/comp programs, and I'm not sure how balkanized the field is compared to literary study!

And just because it's not linked in his latest post on the topic, here are the abstracts: http://www.inthemedievalmiddle.com/2014/06/ice-at-ncs14.html

For what it's worth, the Princeton Review book recommends guessing if you can get the answer options narrowed down to four choices. And if you think about the math of it, it makes sense why they do: even just guessing randomly (and presumably you can usually narrow down the field to less than four choices, and usually it's not actually a truly random, wild, shot-in-the-dark, one-chance-in-four guess, anyway), you'd get 1/4 of such questions correct. Assume you guess on four questions; that'd be one point added to your score for the right answer, and 3/4 of a point removed for the three inaccurate guesses. You still end up 1/4 of a point ahead of just not answering the four questions and taking a zero. Not that I'm going to just walk around blithely filling in circles for questions I have zero idea about, but I think it is a strong enough argument to push me over the edge to guessing when I've got a hunch.

WT (I can call you WT, right?)--If you do end up getting those cards, will you let me know how they work out? I was scared off them by the one Amazon review that talked about the many (admittedly minor) typos. Having found some (once again, mostly minor) typos in the Princeton Review book, I'm a bit wary of something that's reviewed as having a larger quantity of them.

Oh, no--my "including names in my SOP already feels grubbing and vaguely smarmy enough as it is" above was not at all meant as a comment that including them actually is grubbing and smarmy, just that it feels that way to my default state of taciturn midwestern reserve! I very much see how it could be taken that way, though, and it's not at all what I intended--sorry! As ComeBackZinc says (and he'd definitely know better than I) it does seem to be standard practice, and I'm doing it with the vast majority of my applications, too. One of my letter writers often sits on the department's admissions committee, and during our long talk about SOPs his advice was that while it is occasionally controversial (I saw on another board here that Stanford, for one, hates it?), I should definitely include names--with (again, as ComeBackZinc says) the understanding it has to be done carefully (you need to have actual ways your research intersects), and it has to not be fawning (fear of appearing which is partially what inspired my comment above).

No, of course, you're all right! I'm hoping I'm just getting all the overthinking out of my system early on, in a sort of cleansing purge. Thanks, proflorax, for reminding me what the damn purpose of the writing sample is, anyway. And ComeBackZinc's point is especially well-taken: what, if it were an issue, I'd remove them? Yeah, no--that's just plain crazy talk. Wyatt's Torch--given your list and what I know of your interests, I've made a five-dollar bet (with myself) that yours is Helen Vendler.

I realize these fora are pretty dead over the summer--everyone's already accepted/attending, or deep in their GRE flashcards, or blissfully not even planning their apps yet--but there's something I'd like to ask others' advice about. So, as I've been simultaneously expanding/contracting my list of programs I'll be applying to in the fall, I'm running into a--well, I don't know if it will be a problem. It might be a good thing? Two of the programs I've recently added to my list both feature potential POIs who show up in my writing sample. (There's a third who was already on the list, but she's so superstar/probably-near-retirement-and-not-taking-on-students/teaching-at-a-ridiculous-reach-school anyway that I hadn't even considered it an issue with her, or even thought about it until this post.) One provides cogent discussion of the methodological basis I use in the paper's first half, the other treats a very closely related linguistic crux to the one I'm discussing. This makes sense, I suppose--they're POIs for a reason. But including names in my SOP already feels grubbing and vaguely smarmy enough as it is; I'm worried that if these people show up in my writing sample, too, they'll think that I've just shoehorned their research into the thing in the app process (and I'm way, way too lazy to attempt something like that!), or chosen this sample just because it draws on their work--especially since it's not coterminous with all of the specific interests in my SOP. Problem? Or over thinking? Should I acknowledge it when I talk about them in my fit paragraph in my SOP--"and her work on knottyproblem has provided" etc etc etc--or just leave it unsaid?

You're right--that does sound like great advice! One of the things I found about using past work to guide narrowing my focus is that it's allowing me to say "Oh, I've written about this, and this, and this," especially since my writing sample--while on my very narrow historical subfield, and easily the best written, most methodologically careful research I've done--is not quite as aligned with the theoretical interests in my SOP.