__________________________

I'm pursuing it for as long as I enjoy it, I guess? I'm getting paid a living wage with health insurance and living in the city that I wanted to move to after graduating from college even before I decided to apply to grad school. Which is nice. I have work experience in other things that I could pursue if this doesn't work out, but they aren't exactly gold mines either (library science, teaching), and, actually, getting my MA and PhD from the program I'm in (or even leaving after the MA or ABD) wouldn't put me in a bad spot in terms of going forward with that experience. My partner is working her way into education right now, and people with advanced degrees in the humanities get decent jobs in her (and other schools in the area) all the time. I've questioned whether I want to stay in graduate school a lot actually, but the truth is I'm in a pretty fortunate position right now despite all the negative rhetoric about what I'm doing and despite the job market that is actually, truly, really bad. And even though I go to a school that has a better placement rate and endowment than many schools out there, I don't know a single person in my department who has any illusions about the job market and I know many who came from different jobs and have some semblance of a "plan B," which isn't to say that I also haven't met people who literally have no idea what they will do if they don't get a job in academia after graduating. Personally, I feel like I could ease back into the "real world" pretty easily and don't feel super emotionally attached to academia (though it is only my first year). Maybe that's a bad sign for my prospects in academia though? I don't know. If I wanted to leave, I could just finish the MA and easily get a job teaching in a charter school around here and make 40-50k as a starting wage and probably get a master's in teaching paid for. I'd be totally fine with that, though I have serious problems with that system. But when I put it in that perspective, a lot of the screaming about the job market (which has gotten drowned out pretty significantly since I began coursework) seems rather histrionic. That's how I feel right about it all right now, anyway.

I've never heard of a PhD program actively preferring BA applicants over ones with M(F)As, though some still require a master's (which is the norm outside the U.S.).

I think these are some of the most important questions you can ask, regardless of funding package, rank, etc. Also ask about how advising works in the program, particularly during your years in course work. These are questions I didn't think to ask about and really should have.

I'm not gonna try and "comfort" you because getting that from strangers probably won't be very helpful. If you're just coming out of a B.A. though and have little or no work experience I really recommend Americorps though: http://www.nationalservice.gov/programs/americorps I know people who are doing it/have done it that it really helped out when they were in a similar situation to what you're describing. You could find a career and a lot of opportunities, or you could just do some really fulfilling service work for a year while you reapply to graduate schools. Best of luck to you.

ummm... I dunno... I wouldn't advise uploading course papers like that. If/when you do publish something, you should also probably check in with the publisher (people have gotten in trouble for things like that, and now some new journals will say on their websites whether they allow uploading of forthcoming/published essays on Academia.edu). But my profile has literally nothing on it; I treat it like Twitter: you don't have to actively participate and throw yourself out there to benefit from it. I don't think anyone's gonna search you up on the interwebs and laugh at you for having a silly Academia.edu page. If you want to look at examples, you can go on the website and search your department/prospective department and see what others have done I guess?

My impression is Linkedin is irrelevant for academia, though I still have one from before I started grad school that had some vague semblance of usefulness (I guess?) for when I was in the "real world." I recently started an account on Academia.edu simply so I could download a couple articles that I was having trouble tracking down through other avenues. I'm not savvy at all with social media, but Academia.edu looks like it could be useful for sharing information like that; it makes recommendations on recent papers and things based on the research interests you put on your profile, so that's something. I think that's ultimately what it's useful for; my impression is that it can be like tape trading for academics.

That's a very good sign; congratulations!

A Black Books situation is the most comfortable translation of the sense of responsibility and self worth that I already experience as a graduate student.

I went to a tiny regional small liberal arts college too, didn't do an M.A. and am in my first year a Ph.D. program right now (provided I survive these first three quarters intact, I'll have an MA in 2016). My two biggest priorities in applying were to get full-funding and to be in a place where I would be able to pursue my main subject interest but also have the flexibility to fall back on other interests if that were to change. I ended up -- mostly -- applying to Ph.D. programs. I decided to apply to grad school practically at the last minute (mid-August), drafted an all-new WS, took the GRE, and applied to 9 schools while working and applying for jobs. I lucked. the hell. out. and got into two of my top choices for the Ph.D. Personally? I'd say apply to both MA and PhD just because you never know. For me at least, that was a purely practical decision -- if I couldn't get paid I was going to keep working and eventually go get a professional MA because a graduate degree in the humanities, for me, wouldn't be economically viable at all without full funding. My undergrad had limited resources too, but I don't feel like I'm any more or less bewildered or overwhelmed than any of my colleagues who have M.A.s and/or went to bigger schools with more resources (though I'm occasionally jealous of the things they had access to and didn't take advantage of). This isn't at all to say that it won't make any difference to get an M.A., just that you shouldn't necessarily think yourself "unworthy" to even apply for a Ph.D. simply because you didn't go to a name-brand school. Your work, your drive, and your self-presentation matter more than your credentials at this point and you should just apply to places that seem like places where you'll thrive.

For what it's worth, I'm in a Ph.D. program at a private university. My cohort consists of eight students: half of us came in straight from a B.A. and three of us are international. We are all fully funded under the same financial package. This may not be the rule, but it certainly isn't unprecedented.

All my materials were in caroline minuscule.

While I see nothing against this in general, I don't think at all that this needs to be a rule. Familiarizing yourself with professors' work is different than quoting all their stuff. I'm not saying that it's inappropriate, just that I think it's silly to say "yeah, this is definitely something you should try and do in all your SOPs." There are different ways to demonstrate familiarity and similar scholarly concerns than just quoting them and saying you read their book, and sometimes you have to resort to other ways if you have POIs who are junior faculty and may not have a book yet and have just done a couple articles here and there. But by no means should this translate to not familiarizing yourself with their work; how else are would you be picking programs to apply to in the first place? Nobody's said not to familiarize yourself with the work of POIs. This is something you do in the program too. Like reading the most recent book of someone you plan on taking a seminar with, paying attention to the recent work of a potential advisor, or, really, just anyone's work at the university whose work interests you. Part of being an academic is just knowing what kind of stuff people around you are working on. That's part of the culture you're entering into and should be able to show.

Fair.

Jeez, y'all are putting a lot of thought into this. For the SOP for the place I go to now, my mention of professors I wanted to work with was, like, two sentences. "I am especially interested in working with Professor X and Professor Y, as both are doing work that is both sensitive to [bla bla bla, historical field bullshit] and theoretically rigorous." Or something like that. I made no mentions of courses. One of those professors is on sabbatical right now, but I can still get in touch with him if I want to. I think this is right on, and it doesn't necessarily have to translate to: "I read this and this book and this article and want to work on this stuff, just like Professors X, Y, and Z." It means identifying the spirit of the department, their particular methodological and theoretical concerns and, if you see yourself fitting in with that environment, presenting yourself in a way that is sensitive to those concerns. This is why it can be useful to correspond with POIs: by now, you should have identified what you want in a school, and by asking POIs about specific things at their schools you can get a sense of what they have to offer you and what sorts of things their program prioritizes. This is much more important, I think, than telling them what stuff you've read and how you see yourself as being super influenced by specific professors. Courses offered and the research interests of professors, it would seem to me, are much less important than conveying what sorts of dialogues you want to have and what you can bring to the table in those courses and with those professors. That's my sense at my institution, anyway. It could be different at other places.

I don't think having something like a 3.7 GPA (or its equivalent) is bad at all, especially for an overall average. Last season, I got 4 fully funded (3 Phd, 1 MA), viable offers at reputable schools with a 3.6. So I wouldn't expect that talking about such a thing would really have much to do with talking about your GPA. But I don't know you and haven't read your writing. So, you know. Salt. It's your call, obviously. But were I you I'd use the limited space of an SOP to focus strictly on matters professional and academic. It's easy to freak out over the details. Instead, start picturing the kind of scholar you want to become, which questions and passions motivate you, and work on conveying that. That's more important than any of your statistics. If terrible personal loss plays an indispensable/vital role in that, then talk about it. If not, I'd (personally) stick to the scholarship. I think it's much easier to produce good writing that way.

No.

Missing the subject test will limit you for a lot of top schools. I didn't take it either though and also had reservations about whether I wanted to be in an English department -- feel free to PM me about that. Have you looked at Berkeley's Rhetoric program? They don't require the subject test and are super interdisciplinary and into theory. If only because they don't accept the GRE subject test, encourage a range of theoretical approaches, and have proximity to an excellent film studies program, UChicago should be getting your attention. Definitely Duke Literature, too (Rey Chow is currently doing some work with cinematic sound theory). Duke and Chicago are also very good for modernist and contemporary work, so I want to emphasize those to you. It's probably worth looking at the Film Studies and Japanese departments at the schools you look at as well, and take into consideration how much flexibility the English/Lit programs you consider allow in taking classes outside the home department. If you want to do interdisciplinary things, it's nice to be somewhere that has an intellectual climate that appeals to you outside of your home department, too. This has been said, but I will echo that you shouldn't probably apply to a Comp Lit program without having fluency in at least one foreign language; in English, however, it is quite normal to acquire most or all of your language skills during grad school (looking into resources for that at schools of interest is worth it -- particularly for funding and summer programs).

I think this is very sound advice. I applied to 9 (8 and 1 MA) and I probably should have cut out, like, four or five of those and replaced them with one or two others... but, you know, hindsight... Sure, your interests may change, but if you're applying for a Ph.D. you should have some sense of what your general interests are: what sort of questions grab your interest, what period(s) interest you, what sorts of methodologies compel you. There are top schools that I applied to out of a sense of obligation (and lower-tiered ones as well) -- they were "obvious" choices for my field -- that I had no right to apply to and which would have been a terrible fit. I really can't imagine applying to more than 10 programs really, and even that seems high. I think one should try to apply to places that seem most useful to you as a scholar -- both due to things like the personality of the program (big, with lots of people doing their own thing vs. small and collaborative), the scholars who work there who seem like they're doing the kind of work you want to do, and the resources available in the university at large. You'll hear about fit a lot, and I can't stress it enough (I got in to both my top choices and rejected from almost all of my "safety schools" because of it) and honestly, there's no magic number, but based on my criteria I can't imagine applying to 15 schools (putting the sheer expense aside -- yikes) and honestly being able to picture myself being happy at all of those places.

To respond to TakeruK, Yeah it's an interesting debate and I'm not really sure how it breaks down in actual practice. It seems the two approaches in the article I linked (and what your describing as occuring in STEM) amount to a difference in attempting to (and I'm talking about my perception of the intent here and nothing more) either react to an economic condition by decreasing cohorts or create a positive effect on the market. Of course my first questions for either of those approaches would be: 1, statistically speaking, in order to actually make a response to the market that would be proportionate, wouldn't hundreds of PhD programs just have to stop taking new students altogether (which could effectively create even more academic unemployment)? Secondly, what is being done by the programs attempting to expand to make sure they're not just sending out a bunch of people toward inevitable unemployment? I agree with this, but I think when we start thinking about how to actually do this a lot of anxieties come about. In VM's previous posts we see an anxiety with the humanities being "sold out," with many traditional methodologies being replaced or "zinged up" by trendy practices aping IT (a common fear I've seen/heard with the field of Digital Humanities). In primary education too, as an English teacher, I've seen schools moving toward emphases on technology or STEM or other more "practical" studies in really, really worrying ways -- not because of inherent problems with interdisciplinarity, but rather because of poor implementation and guiding principles. That being said, I think really interesting conversations between the humanities and sciences are starting to open up, but it seems to me that these conversations are mostly (from what I've seen) one-sided in that they are dominated by humanists. That's changing though, I think/hope. IMO action begins with intellectual exchange. I also firmly believe that a lot of this takes place outside of the range of university as it is today, though movements towards making higher ed less "ivory towerish" start with making it available to all, and equal access to education and educational reform needs to be perceived as something relevant to everyone involved in education -- which includes academics. Romanista, I thought the same thing and would love it if someone knew of a study that broke down the statistics more. My knowledge of stats is rusty too, so I'm not sure how significant the decrease is (though it seemed super tiny to me too)

I actually completely agree with this -- I do wish we could have a conversation about the realities of the field in these terms instead of just pointing fingers and feeding histrionics with more histrionics and/or eye-rolling. I'd still like to hear about what people think of the link I posted from the Chronicle. That there's been a decrease in people entering Ph.D.s in the Arts and Humanities and that some programs have taken the approach of accepting smaller cohorts while others have taken the approach of expanding out of some inclination that they have a duty to preserve the arts and humanities. What do people think of that? Really, I'm asking y'all what your opinions are. I truly don't understand why we have to get so emotional about all this and why we can't actually discuss what's going on without getting taking it so personally. Personally, I think it makes the most sense to discuss facts without yelling at each other -- emotional appeals and kicking and screaming and critiquing the way we present ourselves on an anonymous forum so quickly reduces the conversation to the level of Youtube commentary. Isn't it more useful just to talk about what's going on without trying to tell people what to do and feel? Can we maybe consider doing that?

Edit: you know what, nevermind. Not going to engage.

http://chronicle.com/article/Enrollment-in-Humanities-PhD/233175/ Thoughts?

Great advise above, Berkeley should definitely be on your list. You should also definitely look at the University of Chicago -- while it's not the only English program like this, it is certainly a good example of a place where one is encouraged to have certain widely-applicable theoretical concerns first and foremost and to let those settle within historical/generic boundaries second (and even then, one's imagination is encouraged to wander). Cornell, I think, would be worth looking at as well. I dunno, to me, it sounds to me like you'd do fine with an English program. At least where I am, there are plenty of people who primarily work with theory first and foremost. This will vary with departments, of course, but I think it's fine to have a primarily theoretical set of interests, as long as you know what your "big questions" are and how you would use literary texts (alongside other sorts of texts, I guess) to go about "answering" those questions. If I were you I'd look at whatever programs seem interesting and not be afraid to apply to a mixture of different sorts of programs (e.g., one or two WGST, one or two cultural, 3 or 4 English or something like that) and see what sticks. Fwiw, at first I was going to apply to half comp lit, half medieval studies and ended up applying to four MS, four English, and one comp lit (or something like that) and wound up at an English program that I'm quite excited to be starting next month. I think there's plenty of room for the sort of work that you seem to be describing within English but that doesn't mean there might not be more interdisciplinary programs out there for you. Two cents.

"Literature and Philosophy" is definitely a "thing" in literary studies (probably more so than in academic philosophy) and definitely a hugely rich topic for 19th century English literature that I think you could definitely bill yourself as focusing on. You may want to think about what specific philosophical issues you are interested in exploring in literature. Examples: animal studies / (post)humanism, feminism / gender / sexuality, historicism / philosophy of history, mat etc. In addition to Schopenhauer, other German dudes like Kant, Marx, Hegel, and Nietzsche are probably pretty friggin important for you to know quite well. For applying for English programs, languages certainly help, particularly ones you need for your central interests (as an example, I'm a medievalist, so my WS displayed a working knowledge of medieval Latin and Middle English), but yes, your program should allow you the time and resources to acquire languages too, so not having languages shouldn't necessarily prevent you from applying altogether. My program, as an example, requires reading knowledge of at least one foreign language by the end of the second year. Requirements will vary from person to person and program to program. Wyatt brought up a good point about separating (to a certain extent) your academic and personal tastes. Writing a fresh WS and figuring out a methodology for that is a good way to start feeling out what you like doing (as opposed to just reading) and what you still need to learn to do your "project" (which is what the program is for). And of course, your interests will change, so having secondary interests is probably a good thing and will help you in your search -- "I know I need to learn German and Brazilian Portuguese to better understand so-and-so writers and I also would like there to be some people doing cool stuff on Milton and some people doing cool stuff on Stirner. It would also be nice to be able to take a class or two on queer science fiction and the Harlem Renaissance. What schools have some, many, most, or all of those things?" To agree with cloud, no, writing a comparative piece on two German philosophers is not very "englishy." Also, broadly defending one sort of literary theory over others requires a depth of knowledge of various kinds of literary theory that I sincerely doubt you have and cannot be acquired in a few months or a year (I sincerely don't mean that to be an insult, that's legit just the kind of thing you write after you've written a few books and have tenure somewhere). Keep the arguments to specific texts for now. That being said, yes, literary scholars have all sorts of debates over hermeneutics (as do philosophers and religious scholars) and yes, that can be something you focus on (in addition to some sort of theoretical and historical grounding).

lol. Yeah, well it is very likely that my "project" will in some way be dealing with poetics and/or religious texts in a period of England that happens to have been profoundly trilingual, so I kind of need to take classes outside of English. But yeah, you might not expect it to be the case, but Mongolian tap dancing is very much entwined in that culture...