allplaideverything

I genuinely don't understand the position that, since it's unlikely you'll get an academic job, you shouldn't do a PhD. Like, if you'd be happier working in marketing or HR or restaurants than you would be doing a PhD, absolutely you should go do that stuff. But if that stuff is your fall-back, and you'd be happier reading for a living for 5-8 years, that stuff will still be there later.

Hey Team, I wanted to start a thread for people to ask questions / share thoughts about campus visits--what to ask, what to pay attention to, how important they are, etc.
 
Also, I have a question!
 
Do y'all think there's a way to go about getting two schools in a similar region to reimburse you for the same overall trip? Like, how do I ask Riverside and Davis if I can show them the receipts for my flight into LA and out of Sacramento, weeks apart, and get both of them to give me the max reimbursement (which still won't add up to the total cost of the trip)? Any thoughts / advice would be dope!

UC-Davis has a couple people working in visual culture, and one of them (Matthew Stratton) offered a grad seminar in comics last year. I wouldn't say it's a huge focus of our department, but we're friendly to it. UW-Madison has Ramzi Fawaz, who's super rad.

UC-Davis has a couple people working in visual culture, and one of them (Matthew Stratton) offered a grad seminar in comics last year. I wouldn't say it's a huge focus of our department, but we're friendly to it. UW-Madison has Ramzi Fawaz, who's super rad.

I think poliscar is right. I'd add that you might find it more useful to focus on the theoretical / methodological leanings of departments more than how many 20th C Americanists they have. Basically every department will have at least one person who does 20th C Am, and you can read the literary texts you're interested in on your own. If you're really into psychoanalysis, though, or Marxism, or whatever, you'll need to be in a department that supports that kind of work.

I am an undergrad, but the notion of specializing in a specific research field still makes me a little nervous (which is a tad irrational because I have years to figure out what I want to specialize in lol). I am sure I will gain more clarity on what I should specialize in farther down the road, but it seems, at least to me, that it would be more convenient to know what I want to specialize in for picking out which programs I should apply to. My main issue with picking out something to really hone in on is the fact that I tend to like pretty much any literature that I study/read. Has anyone else ever ran into an issue to similar to this? How did you narrow down your research interests?

As I get toward my comps, I now realize that my knowledge of the discourse of the field at the time I applied was miniscule (part of why you go to grad school, at least in the U.S. model, is to learn what the state of the discourse is).  I think that if you articulate your interests clearly, if there are folks well suited to advise you on the adcom that they'll know whether it has the potential to make a meaningful contribution.  My feeling is that you're much better suited telling them what your interests are, rather than using up precious space discussing the state of the field.

yeah, not the most expected move. I think it may have been because of non-academic reasons but I don't know...
I'm totally out of my realm here, but OP may also want to investigate Ramzi Fawaz, at UW-Madison...

Hey GradCafe! I'm finishing up my first year of the PhD (ahh!!), and wanted to start a conversation with you brilliant folks about choosing our area(s) of specialization.
The specialization I proposed in my SOP & writing sample, which was pretty specific in terms of periodization and methodology, is no longer especially thrilling to me. Coursework, and more generally hanging out with my awesome cohort and being around great faculty, has gotten me excited about stuff I had no idea I'd be into! (For example, I came in as a 19th Century Americanist, and have somehow fallen in love with a few 18th Century British poets! Weird.) (Also, note to future applicants: Don't feel like your proposed area of specialization is a binding contract! You'll have freedom and flexibility in your program to adapt your interests.)
So, I'm wondering how you all are going about choosing your areas of specialization! I can imagine beginning with specific authors or literary texts and building an interpretive methodology from there; I can also imagine beginning with a specific theoretical framework or conceptual problem and looking for texts that might help think through the questions. Other approaches?

Take a look at UC-Davis. We've got three great Victorianists--Liz Miller, Kathleen Frederickson, & Parama Roy. Parama also does colonial/postcolonial lit & theory, and is one of the most intimidatingly brilliant people I've ever met (http://english.ucdavis.edu/people/proy). We also just generally have lots of faculty with strengths in critical theory, Marxism, etc., and I think we're generally a good place to do intersectional 19th C work.
I'd also add that, while of course you shouldn't apply to programs that don't have any 19th C British / colonialism scholars, it's probably more important to select programs that seem to have a more general intellectual identity that appeals to you, rather than seeking out a faculty member or two who are working on the exact thing that excites you--that one scholar you really want to work with might be busy, or might be less dedicated to graduate students, or might just be a jerk.

Take a look at UC-Davis. We've got three great Victorianists--Liz Miller, Kathleen Frederickson, & Parama Roy. Parama also does colonial/postcolonial lit & theory, and is one of the most intimidatingly brilliant people I've ever met (http://english.ucdavis.edu/people/proy). We also just generally have lots of faculty with strengths in critical theory, Marxism, etc., and I think we're generally a good place to do intersectional 19th C work.
I'd also add that, while of course you shouldn't apply to programs that don't have any 19th C British / colonialism scholars, it's probably more important to select programs that seem to have a more general intellectual identity that appeals to you, rather than seeking out a faculty member or two who are working on the exact thing that excites you--that one scholar you really want to work with might be busy, or might be less dedicated to graduate students, or might just be a jerk.

Take a look at UC-Davis. We've got three great Victorianists--Liz Miller, Kathleen Frederickson, & Parama Roy. Parama also does colonial/postcolonial lit & theory, and is one of the most intimidatingly brilliant people I've ever met (http://english.ucdavis.edu/people/proy). We also just generally have lots of faculty with strengths in critical theory, Marxism, etc., and I think we're generally a good place to do intersectional 19th C work.
I'd also add that, while of course you shouldn't apply to programs that don't have any 19th C British / colonialism scholars, it's probably more important to select programs that seem to have a more general intellectual identity that appeals to you, rather than seeking out a faculty member or two who are working on the exact thing that excites you--that one scholar you really want to work with might be busy, or might be less dedicated to graduate students, or might just be a jerk.

If only I had taken it that year! 700+ for sure!

I think you'll have an easier time if you focus on programs with strong 19th century faculty and strong po-co, even if those po-co people arn't "in field"--your diss chair doesn't have to be both; you just need an enviroment where faculty are invested in those fields and could support you. 

You'll notice the qualifications allplaid made in his suggestion. 
It's conceivable...it's a mild possibility. I think that's about right. Having a publication under your belt probably won't adversely affect your application, but I see the logic behind the claim that it might. Another possibility is that publishing might irk some of those professors who cringe at the thought of premature professionalization. While their numbers are dwindling as more recognize it's no longer viable for graduate students not to publish, some remain. 
But more likely than either of these two options is that "publication" won't have any effect on your application at all. I put "publication" in scare quotes because, frankly, 99% of PhD applicants claiming to have a publication have something that doesn't count for beans by the standards of the profession. A publication in ELH, SEL, or one of the big, period-specific journals "counts" as a publication; an essay in The Sigma Tau Delta Review does not. When an admissions committee sees an applicant list an essay in the latter on his or her CV, they might think it's "nice," but it really won't count for much more than that.
So if you can get published in a major journal, great. If not, don't work yourself to death trying to get published in Southwest Louisiana Tech Community College Journal of Arts just so you can claim you have a publication. Because no one will care. 

I mean, take my comments with however much salt you want. But I think publishing before you're really doing *great* work is risky for lots of reasons--and if you think you're already doing *great* work before even starting a PhD, either you're a genius who probably doesn't need my advice, or you might have an inaccurate idea of the kind of work being done in literary crit / scholarship. Read the top journals in your sub-field, pay attention to the mastery, knowledge, and range of references the authors demonstrate, and look them up and see where they are in their careers. If you think your work is comparable to what you're reading in the top journals, then hey, go for it! But be aware that it's not at all guaranteed to help you get in, some admissions committees might think you're getting ahead of yourself in a less than attractive way, and your ideas about the issues, concepts, and texts you're writing about now will absolutely change during your PhD program, and the best case scenario is that you publish in a great journal and hiring committees will be asking you about this article you don't at all agree with anymore 6-7-8 years from now.

This is something that's been touched on in a lot of threads, though they don't tend to go anywhere as their own dedicated ones.
2. Yes. It's really not uncommon to go straight to a Ph.D. from a B.A. in literature, or most humanities fields for that matter. My cohort is about 50/50 people who came in with MAs and those who didn't. I'd say it doesn't greatly disadvantage you, but it's probably wise to apply to at least one or two MA programs and inspect the MA programs at the schools you apply to (in the case you are offered admission into an MA program at a school where you applied for the Ph.D.).
1. $$$. For timing, this is largely a question of employment, stamina (do you want to dive straight into another 6-10 years of school after your BA?), and financial concerns. I had a year between finishing my BA and starting my Ph.D. and had to do a little juggling to stave off loan payments and save money for moving and the gap between my job ending and my first stipend arriving... etc. etc. On the other hand, paying for the GRE and application fees and shit might be hard while you're still in college and probably broke af. But, I mean, plenty of people don't go straight through to grad school too. So when to apply is largely just a question of when you want to start and what you have going on until then.
3. I wouldn't let things like publications or conferences be the things that keep you waiting another whole year to apply. There are plenty of good reasons to take time, but those things aren't really expected of undergraduates. Schools care more about your academic performance, writing samples, and assessing what kind of work you can do in their program and who you might work with. The other stuff is garnish that can emphasize those central concerns, but aren't the main focus.

Congrats on making this big step! I went from a BA to a PhD program, albeit with a year taken off in between the two. I knew I would be applying to PhD programs during that year off, but I wanted to (a) avoid getting burned out and (b) take an awesome job opportunity in a field I'd wanted to work in for a long time. That being said, I have some tips:
(1) There's no particular sense-making feature intrinsic to applying during your senior year or the fall after your senior year. If you truly feel you are up to the task, you apply when you are ready. The upsides/downsides vary based on your own individual circumstances, but some universals hold true for either experience. Applying during your senior year has the downside of juggling schoolwork (which you're trying to excel in) and the exhausting application process. From September to December of 2015, I was applying to graduate programs left and right (13 total) while working full-time, and it felt like a part-time job. I know I couldn't have done it as well if I was in school during that time -- although, of course, everyone's aptitude is different, so you could totally be up to the task. However, tough as it is to be applying senior year, there is a downside to not applying as early as you can, in that shut-outs are common, and the longer it takes for you to get your PhD, the longer it'll be before you get your degree. All of this is to say, aside from some generic considerations to applying during undergrad or taking a year off, the motivating factors there should be your unique circumstances. I know that if I hadn't taken a year off, I'd be burned out to a crisp by now, and I'd have missed out on a job opportunity that I know I probably won't ever get again. But I have a friend in an Econ PhD who's doing great having gone straight from undergrad; it all depends.
(2) Your qualifications sound pretty solid as it is. Getting a paper published would be a huge boon for your applications, but by no means is it necessary; in fact, I doubt most applicants have academic publications, often even those with MAs. The thing to remember is that while you should line your CV with as many relevant accomplishments as possible, don't think that there is a "perfect number" that'll for sure land you in a PhD program. I probably got into my PhD program over people who had higher GRE scores than me, more teaching experience, better-repped undergrad institutions, etc. There's an ineffable aspect to the decisions of adcomms. This is no reason to not keep doing your best work, of course, but I wouldn't psych yourself out over thinking that if you get X, Y, and Z, you will get a spot. 
You can feel free to PM me with more specific questions if you'd like!

This is good food for thought. I'm so glad someone started this thread. I don't really have any good advice, it seems there is somewhat of a random order to these things.  I've been thinking about my quals that are due next year (next year equates to "tomorrow" in my mind) and I need to write about 40 - 50 pages.
Hey AllPlaid, I remember your great posts from last year when I was still dreaming and before I had to start working like a dog!
I'm finishing my first year too and my advisor has advised me to be flexible as I would be getting new ideas. However, I have given a couple of presentations on my originally planned area and it continues to be well received. My area is language contact in Mexico and a visiting prof was enamored of the topic - that was a nice ego boost. 
 

Hey GradCafe! I'm finishing up my first year of the PhD (ahh!!), and wanted to start a conversation with you brilliant folks about choosing our area(s) of specialization.
The specialization I proposed in my SOP & writing sample, which was pretty specific in terms of periodization and methodology, is no longer especially thrilling to me. Coursework, and more generally hanging out with my awesome cohort and being around great faculty, has gotten me excited about stuff I had no idea I'd be into! (For example, I came in as a 19th Century Americanist, and have somehow fallen in love with a few 18th Century British poets! Weird.) (Also, note to future applicants: Don't feel like your proposed area of specialization is a binding contract! You'll have freedom and flexibility in your program to adapt your interests.)
So, I'm wondering how you all are going about choosing your areas of specialization! I can imagine beginning with specific authors or literary texts and building an interpretive methodology from there; I can also imagine beginning with a specific theoretical framework or conceptual problem and looking for texts that might help think through the questions. Other approaches?

Hey GradCafe! I'm finishing up my first year of the PhD (ahh!!), and wanted to start a conversation with you brilliant folks about choosing our area(s) of specialization.
The specialization I proposed in my SOP & writing sample, which was pretty specific in terms of periodization and methodology, is no longer especially thrilling to me. Coursework, and more generally hanging out with my awesome cohort and being around great faculty, has gotten me excited about stuff I had no idea I'd be into! (For example, I came in as a 19th Century Americanist, and have somehow fallen in love with a few 18th Century British poets! Weird.) (Also, note to future applicants: Don't feel like your proposed area of specialization is a binding contract! You'll have freedom and flexibility in your program to adapt your interests.)
So, I'm wondering how you all are going about choosing your areas of specialization! I can imagine beginning with specific authors or literary texts and building an interpretive methodology from there; I can also imagine beginning with a specific theoretical framework or conceptual problem and looking for texts that might help think through the questions. Other approaches?

Hey GradCafe! I'm finishing up my first year of the PhD (ahh!!), and wanted to start a conversation with you brilliant folks about choosing our area(s) of specialization.
The specialization I proposed in my SOP & writing sample, which was pretty specific in terms of periodization and methodology, is no longer especially thrilling to me. Coursework, and more generally hanging out with my awesome cohort and being around great faculty, has gotten me excited about stuff I had no idea I'd be into! (For example, I came in as a 19th Century Americanist, and have somehow fallen in love with a few 18th Century British poets! Weird.) (Also, note to future applicants: Don't feel like your proposed area of specialization is a binding contract! You'll have freedom and flexibility in your program to adapt your interests.)
So, I'm wondering how you all are going about choosing your areas of specialization! I can imagine beginning with specific authors or literary texts and building an interpretive methodology from there; I can also imagine beginning with a specific theoretical framework or conceptual problem and looking for texts that might help think through the questions. Other approaches?

When choosing between the University of Mississippi and UC Davis, it was a difficult decision when it came to purely academic concerns and fit with the department and faculty. What ultimately made up my mind was the huge difference in stipend and the somewhat superficial criterion of location. However, my partner will be moving with me, and the location makes a huge difference in making him happy with leaving where we are now. It's not just him though--I ain't mad at moving to California. Just continuing my western progression across the continent!

Personally, I'm here for the Fonzie scheme.

Personally, I'm here for the Fonzie scheme.