strokeofmidnight

You seem to be assuming that the Ivy's/private schools will give out better packages. This might be true as a very general trend, but there have been so many exceptions that this trend isn't very useful. I've applied to most of the top 25 English programs over the course of 3 rounds (long story), received offers from about half of them--all funded. If my (admitted antedocotal) offers are any indication, the Ivy's are actually in the middle in terms of funding. I've received perhaps 15 offers over the years. The top 6 funding packages (for me, at least) ALL came from public schools (and I have a knack for applying to schools that are facing the biggest funding issues). They offered not only a higher stipend overall, but more years on fellowship (ie, no teaching). And 2 out of my 3 application years were in the middle of this recess/crisis. This isn't to say that this is always the case...but I think it would be unwise to shy away from public schools simply because one expects them to have poor funding.

I wish that there was a way of predicting this...but from my previous experience, there doesn't seem to be. My top offers each round always came from the strapped-for-cash public schools...that ones that you hear about in the news because the education system in said state is about to drop into the ocean. Ironically, the funding packages from those programs frequently topped out my Ivy league offers--sometimes by 5 figures each year. It's hard to make comparisons, since "fellowship" can mean different things at each program. At some schools, I would have had guaranteed teaching-free years for 2 or 3 (or even 4) years. At others, I was being offered a lot of cash, but would have had to teach the entire way through. Some programs let me combine TAships with fellowships, resulting in a pretty cushy salary. Others did not. Some schools offered the same funding package to every single accepted student. Others might give out offers that differed by 10,000...or more. (Some schools that claimed to offer the same package actually gave me a much higher offer, which makes me wonder about the across-the-board funding claims). One note about the UC fellowships.... the information that you heard isn't quite true from my (not unconsiderable) experience. This varies from UC to UC, but Berkeley, UCLA, and Irvine at the very least tends to give out more fellowship than non-fellowship offers to their English PhD admittees, though the fellowships are distributed very different and at are different amounts. I would pay attention to the fine print on any UC offer and ask lots of questions (ONCE you're admitted--it just looks obnoxious to ask questions before you have an acceptance letter). The DGS's are expecting it. From my experience, the UC offers are (often--do ask around) far more generous. English Lit PhD students at one UC school, for example, can earn over $30,000 a year (for several years) when their fellowship, optional readerships, and summer funding stipends are taken into account. That isn't obvious from the acceptance letter...so it's something that you should poke around for. The situation may have changed in recent years, but Irvine and UCLA typically give out 5 year offers. Berkeley's offer letter is confusing, but one can assume 6-7 years worth of support for students who are given a fellowship (non-fellowship students are in an odd position for the first two years, but will receive full support from years 3-7). The support actually tends extends for much longer than that, as needed--but one can count of 7 years.

This is going to sound redundant and a bit naive, but from my experience...it's REALLY, TRULY, not about playing to the trends. On the one hand, you don't want to be the lone wolf, working on a project that has absolutely no currency, which no scholar understands or cares about. On the other hand, one of the biggest mistakes that I see (constantly!) are candidates who try to sniff out the "hot topics" and tailor their SoP accordingly--and artificially. It shows and will turn people off. Take the time to figure out what actually interests you. Read more about it. Then, write, research, and read some more. Rethink your interests. Explore the critical conversations around those interests. Repeat over months (and for many of us, years). It isn't lost time--this background will put you in much better shape once you enter grad school. If you take the time to actually figure out what draws you--and why, and how, and what contributions you might make (yes, even at this level), and which programs are the best fit for those interests, you WILL be able to write a strong SoP and writing sample. The writing sample is your contribution to that critical discussion. The SoP is the context for it. If you cut corners (as I did), it'll will show in your application. It always does, even in the apps of candidates who are actually very bright, but went about this process in a way that leaves them feeling as though they have to pretend that they more than they do.

It might not be a bad idea to scroll through some of the previous posts, even if they don't address your precise question. The repeated refrain among successful applicants in these forums is that the numbers (GRE, GPA) and reputation (your CV, your school's rank) count for FAR LESS than most applicants imagine. I can cite dozens of students from no-name schools, with poor GRE/GPA (or all of the above) who had the luxury of turning down multiple ivy league PhD offers. I can also cite dozens of peers with tip-top grades/scores from tip-top schools who got in nowhere...not even into their so-called "safety" schools. It's the writing that counts. Seriously. Your writing sample and SoP will trump almost anything and everything else. Focus on that--not on your grades. Take the next 3 semester (long, if you need it--the vast majority--like, 95%--of extremely successful applicants that I know of did NOT apply straight out of undergrad, but either went through an MA program or simply took a few years to explore non-academic avenues) to develop your skills as thinker and writer, to figure out what projects, topics, ideas, thinkers, writers, etc...that you gravitate towards. To find your own project (however rough), and to make sure that this career path (because a PhD in English is definitely a career path, and an extremely risky and unrewarding one at that) is something that you can't live without. THAT is what is going to get you into strong programs, not a good gpa/test scores.

As everyone noted, this is probably not the right approach. Programs pick students (mostly) based on the strength of their writing/thinking/analysis/research, and how well suited your particular project is for the program's current strength and weaknesses. For the most part, your background won't come into play. If you tell us more about your field, project, training, etc...we might be able to offer suggestions...but not based on your non-MA/international status. If you don't have a good sense of a project (or series of related questions in one or two fields) that you might want to pursue...well, I always hesitate to suggest MA programs (particularly since they're often not funded), but it might be a good idea in this case. If you're hell-bent on PhD programs, that are some programs which admit international students in doves...and make most of them pay tuition. I *really* wouldn't recommend that route, but it's out there if you're interested.

Someone else applied to only 2 (maybe 3?) schools last year, due to severe geographical constraints (including not selling a house). She got into her top choice, with funding. Here's hoping that her luck will rub off on you.

I have serious moral reserves about recommending a non-funded Master's program, but given your situation (and the fact that you're already looking at unfunded MA-esque programs), this is perhaps looking into. I know nothing about Oxford, so I'll leave that for someone else. Romanticism is one of my fields. There are the strong programs (that I'm aware of) which offer terminal MA's. Unfortunately, none of these are funded. UC-Irvine: They actually have some really strong Romanticists, so this might be worth a look. This is a summer master's program (which does have its down sides). You'll want to make sure that the professors you want would be teaching during the summers. If you're interested in theory (and if you're doing Romanticism, you'll need more than passing familiarity with theory), Irvine may be a good bet. UVA: strong program for romanticism. Their master's students take classes with the PhD students, so you should have access to outstanding professors. It is pretty gosh-darn pricy. Brown: the romanticist faculty isn't deep, but from my vague recollection...they have some strong people (if you can find a good match). Again, expensive, but since they take a tiny MA cohort (2-5 each year, I think), you should receive the attention you need. It's possible to do this in a year--but really, ridiculously intense. * There should be funded MA's as well...I'm just not familiar with the strengths/weaknesses of those particular programs.

Are you looking at English programs or Lit/Comp Lit? For English, Brown and Columbia comes to mind. Possibly Berkeley, though that doesn't see to be a strong interest among the grad students.

I know of plenty of "smart writers" who scored under a 5. Much of this has to do with the way grading is done. They're looking for a certain "clear" (read, heavy-handed and blunt) writing style that we--as English academics--are trained to use far more subtly. Ambiguity (even teased out) is not a virtue. They're looking for you to take sides, to make very clear-cut analysis on issues that (even as presented) that are often not that clear-cut. They want heavy transitions (often looking for transitional words, rather than a logically structured argument that can function without an in-order-face work like "Secondly..."). You will be docked for NOT doing this, even if you otherwise handle the assignment correctly. Yeah. Freshman writing style.

I don't know what to make of this. For what it's worth, I also scored a 6 on the AW. I was able to do so NOT because I'm a good scholarly writer (though I hope I am), but because after teaching the GRE for years, I do know how to write for it. (I also grade the AW as a practice exam for a major testprep company, supposedly trained to the same standards as the actual GRE graders). The sort of writing skills needed to score well on the AP is precisely NOT the writing skills needed for English academia. Whenever I teach the AW portion in my classes, I warn my students (particularly my humanities students) that they if they write like this in my classroom, I'll fail them. I'm only half-joking...the sort of writing skills that I'm forced to teach for the AW are precisely the things that work to UNteach my undergrads. It's a blatantly obvious writing style that is valuable for some fields, but far too bunt a tool for English. The AW IS taken seriously by some fields. (Some of my nursing students take the GRE ONLY for the AW score), but not for our field. This isn't to say (I hope!) that we're all one-trick ponies. I can write in a scholarly manner for my field, but in an entirely different manner on, say, my journal. It IS to say that because the AW doesn't accurately reflect our writing abilities for our field, and the ad-comms know this. And yes, actually, I have spoken to the ad-comms. I asked two professors (former advisers) about a friend's "5." One of them burst out laughing and said that she doesn't even remember looking at AW scores while on the committee. The other one waved his hand and said that it doesn't matter, and he never quite understood the AW scoring criteria to begin with.

Cornell baffled me last year. I was one of those accepted but I did not visit (since they refused to pay for my flight), so I can't tell you who or how many others were accepted. Last year was definitely rough. I'm not sure that I understand the mentality, but I suspect that some well-qualified candidates who couldn't find jobs decided to give grad school a shot. That was certainly the feedback that I received from other places (both places that accepted me, and places that did not). Other people who might have been thinking about going to grad school eventually might have either lost their jobs, or couldn't find a new one...and decided that this is the year. Considering that the vast majority (90-95%) of my peers enrolled in my PhD program took at least some time off after undergrad, it wouldn't surprise me that the recession caused people who were thinking of waiting longer to apply now instead.

Echoing the chorus. (It's actually kinda eerie that dietc0ke says that ad-comms view them as a "joke"--I was going to use that exact same phrase). I absolutely would NOT recommend re-taking the GRE's. However, I do want to address a tiny misconception: "It's probably too late to retake the general GRE." It isn't. GRE scores are not that important. With most programs, it won't matter at all if your official scores do not arrive by the deadline, as long as you have unofficial scores to enter in. So technically, you can take your GRE the day your application is due and simply put down your unofficial score from the final page. I wouldn't recommend it, but it's a possibly for anyone who's really down to the wire.

Exactly. I actually wouldn't over-emphasize teaching, at least not for this field (where it is assumed that we will go into academia and inevitably teach. Obviously, the job market suggests other realities, but you don't want to go into this on the SoP). Many schools do seem to pay lip service to teach (and actually take their pedagogy seriously), but I think I can safely say that no one ever admitted a PhD candidate on the bases of their teaching skills alone. With very few exceptions, you're being vetted for your research potential and your research potential only. It's assumed that the program will teach you how to teach, whether or not you came up with some teaching skills under your belt. I wouldn't specifically emphasize research either. It's far more powerful and persuasive to discuss WHAT you'll be researching and the demonstrate through that discussion that you're well equipped to undertake it...rather than to actually state, "I want to research."

I'm curious why you would suggest contacting faculty? The links that inafuturelife gives traces our debate on this matter. I think most of us involved--particularly those who fared well in the application process--were more cautious about advising applicants to contact professors. I'd be interested in hearing a strong response for the other side, though I'm hardly impartial. My own experience (both with giving advice and through several rounds of applications) is that the vast majority of candidate who are asking on an internet forum whether or not one should contact professors...are not well positioned to benefit from doing so. It can be rewarding (though I'd argue that unless one has very compelling reason to do so, the returns are not significant enough to warrant the risk--even for applicants who CAN pull it off). However, it requires such a level of finesse, subtlety, and ease with academic protocols that very few applicants have had the opportunity to master it prior to entering a PhD program. As the debate in the threads emphasized, very few professors will actually let you know if you've annoyed them or crossed the (unspoken, variable, and often arbitrary) line. They'll frequently remain polite and professional even they've acquired a negative impression from that email interaction. Personally, considering our field, the applicant would be contacting someone who is a professional expert at reading in between the lines. A thinly veiled excuse to contact for the sake of getting one's name out there can potentially backfire. Sure, some professors will handle it well and some might even be flattered enough to overlook the potential indiscretion. But from my experience, many of them will be annoyed but are too poised to let that annoyance show through in their response. Perhaps another way of saying this: I absolutely agree with the two caveats that you noted and would in fact add to them: 3) the applicant should be *quite* familiar with the unspoken academic protocols before attempting to contact faculty. (Personally, I would have ruled myself out with the final caveat, despite having been a graduate student for two years during my most recent round of applications. I know professors [at least mine] too well to take that risk).

I don't know if they have a program with that specific name, but it may be worth checking out Notre Dame. They have a strong theology department, and many professors within the English department that deal with the intersections of the two. What are your precise interests? Which questions? What period? What methodologies do you prefer? My guess is that you might have to do some creative researching. Most schools might not have a designated R & L program, but several English departments (I can't speak for Religious studies) might be very receptive to work that dips heavily into religion....depending on how you configure the two fields.

I'd be a bit hesitant to simply call. I can't speak for DGS's in general (I've been a graduate student under 5 different DGS's--I can see them responding to this question in very different ways). However, at least some of the DGS's I've encountered would not take to this well. Few of them would be rude to you in response, but this might leave the wrong impression. (I personally wouldn't view it this way, but it can lead a less sympathetic to think that you're trying to avoid doing as much work as other people). And believe me, you don't want to give the DGS any reason to have a negative impression associated with your name. Furthermore (and I say this with my own savvy DGS--of a different program--in mind), she/he might not be inclined to make exceptions for an applicant...particularly in a medium as easily trackable as email...in case she/he are asked why he/she did not offer that opportunity to others. Some DGS's are ultra-sensitive about not showing favoritism to applicants, particularly to a candidate that they don't know (or don't know through a trusted colleague). Personally, I'd just suck up and re-take the test if I really wanted to get into Rutgers. Otherwise, I'd just take a calculated risk and send the old scores. If you are *really* concerned, you might want to call the graduate administrator (NOT the DGS, who is sometimes unhappy to deal with the administrative-ish details) and ask anonymously. Rutgers, I believe, has a very knowledgeable, kind, and savvy grad administrator. I bet she knows more than the DGS (who is fairly new to the job anyway) on these matters. As a general rule, I wouldn't bother the DGS with issue that can be asked of the staff. (This varies from program to program, but the staff is typically knowledgable...and often has more power to grease the wheels than you might think).

I'm in English, not communications, but I'd wager that there are some overlaps. The AWA scores really isn't that important. For my field, it's something of a joke: my professors roll their eyes at it. When I "teach" the AWA section (I taught/tutored the GRE for years), I tell my students that if they ever write for my (English/literature) class as I'm about to train them to write for the AWA section of the exam, I would fail them. I'm only half-joking...the sort of writing that the AWA privileges goes directly against what counts for strong writing in my field. All of this is to say...the AWA is kinda useless for my field (and I would guess, most humanities fields that require a writing sample). The GRE in itself is often useful only for scholarships, or as a baseline (and generally flexible) "first cut" score. I've never heard of the AWA being taken into account in either case--though it should be noted that this does vary from field to field. (Several of my GRE students who were looking to go into nursing tells me that their programs ONLY care about the GRE score. To me, this reinforces my gut instinct that the more important writing is to your field, the less the ad-comms will care about the AWA score...and vice versa).

I've frequently wondered if it's actually helpful to put out a sample SoP. When I was applying (especially for the first time), I know that I desperately wanted one, and was rather put out that I didn't come across samples until my own SoP was practically drafted. In hindsight, I think it's actually really valuable to NOT look at sample SoP's until you have a pretty solid draft. The SoP (for humanities) is so much about finding that sweet spot between displaying your voice and being able to speak professionally to your field that I think it's harder to do so when you rely on samples (and it's almost impossible to *not* over-rely when you have a sample in front of you). I've given out my SoP (which is by no means ideal) to applicants in my field who are far enough along the drafting process that they might benefit from it, but I won't put it up in fear that might actually hinder rather than help. I can, however, help with your questions. Think about the SoP as a space to frame your research interests. What field are you interested in? What questions intrigue you from that field? What methodologies do you want to employ, and why are those well suited for the questions that you ask? What current conversations in this field can you enter? How do they shape your research? How did your previous work lead to your current interests? I typically recommend (for my field, at least) that applications focus on their current and future work as much as possible. In my case (and I had a very well-developed project in mind), this meant that 1100 out of my 1300 word SoP sketched out various aspects of my research proposal. Only a small section (4-5 sentences) discussed my previous work and training--focusing on how it lead to my current project. I spent half a sentence on my undergraduate thesis and 1.5 sentences on my previous graduate coursework/projects. Most applicants in my field are not quite as far long when they apply, which is perfectly fine (and far more common). Even then, I'd recommend focusing on describing, justifying, and situating your research project as much as you can, and discussing only the aspects of your background and training that are directly relevant to that project. For PhD's, especially...you're aiming for depth rather than breadth...or at least that's the case for my field. I'm not sure that it would be the same for yours.

I'd second this advice. I've tutored and taught GRE classes (both on freelance and for a major testprep company) for several years, though on the other side of the country. Although an experienced tutor who is well attuned to your strength/weakness can be helpful, there's a lot that you can do on your own first. Go through *all* the testprep books. Some of those books will be terrible (the GRE is not a major cash cow, so R&D for this particular test is often shoved under the rug, particularly by large companies). Some will be pretty decent, but if you got through enough of them, you should be able to pick up on patterns that are useful to you. If I were you, I'd hold off until I know where my specific weaknesses lie (timing? particular problem types? vocabulary? etc?) before hiring a tutor. This way, you can get the most bang for you buck--tutoring does tend to be expensive...usually $30-$60 per hour (often with a 2 hour min per session) freelance, and over $100 an hour if you go with a major company. Two more bits of unsolicited advice: 1. I'd avoid the big companies. Most of the smaller companies tend to have far more rigorous hiring standards. The biggest companies also have the lowest pay for tutors (sometimes only a 1/3 as much as the other companies)...hence, typically the least experienced tutors. At one point, while teaching for a major company, I was the "senior teacher" for one particular test. I had been teaching that particular test for a grand total of 3 weeks. I think I handled it pretty well (the test is fairly intuitive for me and I've taught other tests for quite a while by that point)..but it's still laughable that I was viewed as the expect for an exam that I've just started teaching. 2. If you do get a tutor, make sure that you can commit plenty of time and energy to practice in between sessions. Far too many of my students insist on meeting too often, without being able to absorb and practice the material/methods in between sessions...which ends up being a huge waste of my time and their money.

I'm not in the sciences, so my experience might not be relevant. But I'd agree with this as well. While Deans are usually also academics, in the programs that I'm familiar with, they serve an administrative role, and do not tend to have the same relationship with their students as a professor would. While this Dean might have indeed attended all of your classes, if he's not seeing your work on a regular bases throughout the semester...if he's not supervising your research, than he might not be able to speak to how development as well as a professor...even if the Dean has attended all of your presentations. If you have a close relationship with this Dean, you might want to present him with this exact dilemma, and see what he suggests.

You might not actually have a choice. Several of the application forms that my schools used asked for every GRE score. But if you were to choose, I'd go with the first score. I assume that the quantitative is more important for your field (though 780 isn't much lower and certainly can't hurt you). Do you know how important the AW score is for your field? For my field (English PhD), the AW score is a joke. Professors know that the type of writing that's needed to do well on the AW is almost the exact opposite of how we're training to write....and we typically have 15-25 page writing samples that present a much better picture of how well we can write for our field. My (vague and unsubstantiated) sense is that AW score might be slightly more important for non-humanities programs...but I don't really know.

I wonder if the unspoken protocols for this vary from field to field, or even department to department? Several of the programs that I considered explicitly stated that they will not read writing samples that indicate "sections to read"...but rather wanted the applicants to commit to the cuts before submitting. When I spoke with professors about how to deal with my absurdly long writing sample (over the twice the desired length for some programs), I was told to cut as best as I could and submit what I have if it's within 20% of the page limit. For programs that require drastically shorter essays, I did cut out several sections of several pages each and discussed the omitted material in square brackets. My field, at least, would not have looked kindly upon ask directing the ad-comm on what to read. But then again, I suspect that these things work differently in other departments.

You've been given lots of advice on the other questions, so I'll focus on the throwaway comments. Where did you hear that advice? I was also told that <i>repeatedly</i> as I was visiting programs as an admitted student last year (though the commentators were by no means unbiased). Professors and grad students in other program swore up and down that 1) professors are fleeing californian programs and 2) there's no funding. Since I was already enrolled in one Californian graduate program and was planning to transfer to another, I know the situation well enough (for my field, at least) to ignore the doomsday comments. I know first hand that neither rumors are true (at least for the program and school in question), but not everyone has the benefit of seeing their top choice school from the inside before they accept an offer. I can't speak for every school or every program in California, but my own program (and there are TONS of rumors circulating around my program) is in pretty decent financial shape. Graduate funding increased--and the class size is more or less along the same lines as in past years. So for my program, at least, it would not have been impossible to get in. I wouldn't overlook an entire state if it has strong programs that would be a good fit for you. You can always figure out the funding issues once you have offers and are in a good position to ask delicate questions. Until then, the rumors may or may not be at all accurate. Some of it (from my experience) were certainly willfully malicious.

I'd go with 2 AND 3. From my experience, it's not unusual to have a professor flake out on you at the last minute. You're better off asking four professors upfront and ending up with an extra letter than not asking and having to scramble. My sense is that many programs will silently accept an extra letter. At my school (not sure how common this might be), although the website only stipulates 3 letters, many applicants will send in 4. (Some send up to 6--the logistical limit--but that would be gliding the lily). When my fourth lor writer flaked, I was actually given the chance to swap in a last-minute fourth letter, although 3 were requested. You might want to check with the applicants in the sciences, though--I'm in the humanities.

First off, are you talking about the MA program through the Humanities department? or are you talking about an MA program through any of the programs that fall under the broader Humanities umbrella (English, history, languages, etc)? Either way, I don't think that a paper for an accounting will cut it. For the humanities, the writing sample and statement of purpose are *really* important. The writing sample needs to show that you have the research, critical thinking, analytical skills, and background knowledge for your field. The statement of purpose describes the type of work that you're interested in doing...which entails knowing what work is currently being done and how you envision your research fitting into that conversation. While an Humanities program (since it's interdisciplinary by definition) will give you some leeway in the type of paper that you submit (English versus history versus classics, etc), I doubt that that would stretch as far as accounting. At the risk of assuming too much, based on your questions, it seems that you don't have a firm sense of the type work that you want to do, or the field that you want to enter into just yet. That's perfectly fine--but it does suggest that you might be better off taking another class or two to solidify your interests before applying for graduate school. While MA programs tend to accept students with less thorough training and less well-defined research interests than their PhD counterparts, you are nevertheless still expected to have a sense of the conversation that you want to enter in your field...and of course, which field (or subfields, or areas of interest) you'd want to study. If you were to apply now, I'd recommend going to your ethnicity studies professor (assuming that this is the sort of work that you're interested in), telling her/him about your plans, and asking him/her for suggestions on how to craft a project that might lead to a good writing sample.