strokeofmidnight

I think you've answered your own question. Reading over this, it seems that re-taking is more about proving your abilities to yourself, rather than meeting the "thresholds" (which are largely fictional) from certain programs. I can absolutely understand the desire to do so, but at the risk of being overly bold, I think to do so for these reasons would be to subscribe to the GRE's insane (and utterly false) logic: that there's some sort of definite correlation between your score and your skills as a scholar. There are too many *other* issues that will bruise your ego in this grueling process for you to waste your time and energy on this one. I can all but promise you that a 660 will *not* hurt you. [i can't even begin to explain just how little weight will be given to this score]. This is a test that (potentially) takes a very long time to study and re-study. (I needed 6 months of studying "full-time"...which is about 30-40 hours a week for me, on top of two full-time jobs and working on my writing sample. Totally. Not. Worth. It). It's also worth noting: in the past few years, there was often an "easy" test and a "hard" test. (I took both the November and October tests two years...one was significantly harder than the other. I've heard similar things about the two fall exams last year). It's entirely possible that even with tons of extra studying, your score might drop should this pattern hold, and you come across the "hard" test and a particularly unfortunate set of questions. You have enough on your plate already...and frankly, absolutely no need to prove your trivia knowledge of English Literature to anyone, much less to the scantron machine at GRE headquarters.

I'm really sorry that you had a rough time with your thesis adviser. I can sympathize. My thesis adviser (though the "thesis" requirement for my program is atypical) all but abandoned me...didn't read drafts, and certainly did not provide helpful feedback. My parter (who wrote an actual MA thesis) had a similar experience. In short, both of us wrote our theses without the benefit of feedback from an adviser. I can't speak for him, but while I'm not proud of my thesis (it was obviously an ugly duckling), it was nevertheless an immensely useful learning experience. The many mistakes that I made in my thesis enabled me to avoid making those mistakes a semester later, when I was working on my writing sample for PhD applications. I would go sofaras to say that *because* I didn't have a thesis adviser who was willing to actually offer guidance, I learned a lot more..and ultimately produced much better work because of it. What I want to suggest is this: although it's frustrating to go at this without your adviser, it *is* possible to do so--and to do quite well. Academia rewards good autodidacts--even if your adviser isn't on board, this might be a good opportunity to learn how to handle the learning process on your own. This isn't to suggest, of course, that you should go at it alone. Recruit your peers and exchange thesis chapters (inafuturelife suggested this on the other thread). Talk to other professors that might be interested in this topic. While it might be politically unsavvy to ask them to take over the reins, you can still pick their brains, ask for reading suggestions, solicit feedback on ideas, etc. Carefully pour over the secondary criticism that you admire (whether or not it's on this topic) to unpack their rhetorical/methodological techniques. What is it about those pieces that makes them so effective...and to what extent can you adopt (and adapt, of course) their approach/methodology/argumentative techniques for your own work? * On a purely practical level, when I was pulling my hair out over my thesis adviser, my undergraduate professor gently-but-sternly told me to be extremely circumspect about turning in drafts. At their suggestion, I now only turn in abstracts and "polished" drafts, both of which I edit (for grammar and clarify) to the same extent as I would for any final paper. In other words, I go to great lengths to make sure that even my work-in-progress is as legible as it can possibly be...because the "other" issues (syntax, grammar, organization) are not in the way, my professors can engage with my drafts at the level of the ideas. Now that I'm teaching (aka, reading "drafts" from my undergrads), I completely understand where they're coming from--and I refuse to read anything *but* a polished draft. "Drafty" drafts (those with grammatical/syntactical/organization issues) are extremely difficult to read and follow, for a variety of different reasons (most of which my students don't even realize). Professors are busier than I am. While it is indeed their job to help you (and boo to your prof for neglecting that duty!), you can help them to help you by making sure that whatever you turn in to them is as clean, precise, and well-organized as you can possible manage.

Disclaimer: I've never written a thesis, so I'm not very familiar with the nuts-and-bolts (though I helped my partner revise his, so I do vaguely remember works cited, table of contents, etc). However, I'm finishing up coursework in a PhD program, so I can speak to the level of writing and research that is (probably) expected for this project. I really wouldn't worry about things like page numbers, margins, etc...at this stage. When in doubt, spend a day or two with your library's version of either Chicago or the MLA guideline...and/or look through previous thesis or dissertations--the latter, at least, should be on file somewhere in your school's library stacks. But this is really a task for when you're basically finished with the thesis, not necessarily when you're just starting. Apologies if this is nitpicking, but I wanted to respond to an issue that you didn't specifically ask, but which might still be relevant to how you think about your project: "How do you get your writing to sound "academic" and not as shaky as I feel? I feel like I can't create a strong thesis - nothing is good/specific enough." I'm a strong believer that one should *never* try to sound academic. If anything, I often find that the task is the exact opposite--trying to strip the jargon out of my writing without losing the complexity of my ideas/arguments/whatnot. Both as a TA and a student, I look for clear, precise, and accessible writing...words that "just complex/sophisticated/specialized enough" to express the idea at hand. When I revise drafts, I'm constantly trying to replace obtuse terms and complicated syntax with simpler, more precise versions. That said, most of the academic work that I admire are sophisticated, subtle, nuanced...and indeed, complex. I find that that complexity is at the level of the ideas that the critic is putting into play--the writing that I admire works to bring these complicated and often abstract ideas down to earth. There's obviously no single (or frankly, satisfactory) answer for how one can come up with "good" ideas. Part of the key, for me, was reading widely and carefully (both primary and secondary criticism)...exposing myself to different methodologies and learning to draw together bits and pieces towards my own critical stance. While this isn't true for everyone, I also found it helpful to not force myself to come up with a "thesis statement" or an argument right off the bat. I think it is impossible to do this responsibly (or well)...before I've actually had a chance to read the previous research, go over my primary materials several, and play with the ideas. In the past, I started pursuing an argument very early...and almost always had to discard my original ideas as my research took me in a different direction. I tell my best students that they need to take the time to think--to actually play with ideas--before they commit themselves to an argument. I imagine that this is even more true for a thesis, where it might take several months before you have a sufficient handle on the material to begin to process it. The best arguments, I've found, come at the end of this "processing" period...not at the beginning.

From what I understand, you're in engineering, right? The entire application structure is extremely, extremely different. In English, we don't apply to work with specific faculty (although we are encouraged to have faculty members in mind, it's highly flexible). People can--and many do--change fields once they start grad school. We apply with our own research projects in mind--not sign up to work on a professor's preexisting project. I applied this year the extremely unusual position of going straight into orals--I asked my orals committee members the day after I accepted an offer. Even then, I did not contact faculty in advance--it's not necessary (and as many members have stated already), not necessarily helpful either in our field. This is all a long way of saying that I'm certain your approach was entirely appropriate and helpful for your field (I don't know nearly enough to comment, but a few engineering and science friends seemed to have had success with contacting professors), but I don't think that methodology or experience can be translated easily into this particular field.

I want to reiterate pamphilia's very sound advice. Most graduate programs--particularly the strong ones--will give you assistance. (and virtually every graduate student that I know of is in your boat--we live off our stipends, and wouldn't have been able to attend otherwise). However, it's somewhat backwards to apply to every program and hope that you'll get in somewhere. Programs are discerning, and in addition to the overall "strength" of the application (largely based on the writing sample and SoP), they select for "fit." Unless you have a sense of what you want to study and can articulate at least the beginnings of a compelling, thoughtful project that's rooted in a scholarly conversation, you won't be able to present yourself as EITHER a strong candidate OR as a good fit for the program. This mentality, I suspect, is what contributes to why many brights students get in nowhere, even when they apply everywhere, including to programs that they think are so lowly ranked that they're sure to get in. (A friend was one of those--rejected across the board from programs that probably ranked lower most on your current list his first round. He figured out what he wanted to do, sharpened his research interests, read up on the scholarship, wrote a damn good paper...reapplied and is now at Berkeley). Think through your research interests and motivations first. Why academia to begin with (while too broad for an SoP, this may be a good question to think through, especially many of the programs on your have highly questionable placement rates and as I'm sure you know, the job market is horrific even for very strong programs that traditionally place very well). What topics in the Renaissance do you find compelling? Why? What can you connect them to? What current scholarship in your field helps to situate your work? What professors in the various programs can help to facilitate your research? Figure out what sort of candidate you are, what you're interested in, what approaches you adopt, what critical issues you're drawn too...etc, etc. This isn't simply an optional way of researching schools. It's absolutely and utterly essential to presenting oneself as a candidate (and actually acquiring the skills) that will get into funded graduate programs. Even "less competitive" programs will have plenty of competition. (We're talking perhaps a hundred applicants for 10 spots, rather than...oh, say, 700 for 10. It's still pretty damn competitive).

I'm not sure how else to put it, other than that things look very different from this perspective. 1. You seem to assume what I think is a false dichotomy between people who are willing to help and people who are not. It's not nearly that simple--as my previous response (unsuccessfully, apparently) tried to indicate. Most graduate students ARE willing to help, but are discerning about who they help, under what circumstances and framework. Personally, I would never speak badly of a professor, adviser, or my program via email to what is essentially a stranger. It's a political risk (even if you reassure them that you'd never share, word does get out quickly). I'd be willing to take it to help a prospective student (aka, with an offer in hand) make decisions (through the phone or in person), but not for someone who--quite frankly--might be among the 90-99% of applicants who won't be accepted into my program to begin with. Being careful who you badmouth your program/professors/peers to isn't overly pessimestic...it's common sense. As as long as you make requests in a format where the respondent isn't inclined to give full disclosure, it's hard to access how honest the answers really are (which isn't to say that they can't be useful). 2. I don't think it's a snap judgment to respond negatively (or not at all) to an email that is practically a SoP, or bears uncomfortable resemblance to an interrogation. What its very length says is that its writer deems him or herself worthy of the recipient's time, effort, and attention. That's a somewhat dangerous assumption to make in academia, particularly if you're starting out. There's no need to kow-tow every time you meet a person, but one should be aware that academics are insanely busy, and taking two or three hours to respond is unusual courtesy, not a right. The negative characterization of those who would not respond to that email favorable (even if we'd do so courteously) seems to suggest that you think the graduate student or professor is somehow professionally obligated to do view that email favorably. That's the assumption that I'm trying to challenge, I suppose. As foppery stated, such an email (or any such--particularly long--email which asks for detailed feedback) is an imposition. At times it will be worth it for you to take that risk, but most of the time, it probably wouldn't...but in any case, it's probably to recognize that giving detailed, helpful, and truly enthusiastic responses to such long emails from pre-applicants is not in anyone's implicit or explicit job description...and because the request is so unusual (by the standards of academic courtesy), the failure to response positively probably shouldn't be viewed as a black mark against the department. 3. At the risk of being blunt and possibly bitchy, I think part of the implicit assumption that is so subtly dangerous here is that you're rhetorically positioning yourself in two contradictory stances. 1. You're asking for help in a manner that makes this a one-way street (since this is all about the grad student/professor can help YOU make decisions, or craft a better SoP for this field). That's what I meant by the strange and uncomfortable power dynamics. 2. At the same time, you're positioning yourself as a peer in putting forth your project and (implicitly) demanding several hours of their time. As I noted earlier, we don't know yet if you're a colleague. That juxtapositioning is very difficult to manage, I think. What I keep trying to say is that your email seems to frame as apart of the "family" (and yes, every program is its own little semi-dysfunctional family) when you're not, yet. This doesn't mean you're necessarily inferior (or superior, or whatnot), but it does mean that you may put people off when you expect to be given the same courtesy. 4. Honestly, researching programs isn't about quizzing the grad students and professors. It's about digging up potential professor's work, reading dissertations, book reviews...etc, etc...until you gain a sense of what projects they support. While there may be opportunities to ask grad students/profs before you're accepted, this isn't the most effective way to go about doing so.

Seconding both answers vehemently. There's a lot to be said for getting help from current grad students. When I last applied, I had friends and colleagues at almost every program on my list. Their help was absolutely instrumental: they (knowing my work) suggested professors that I would never have thought of, helped me gauge the atmosphere of the program, edited my SoP and writing sample, introduced me to other graduate students, offered suggestions on other programs, etc, etc. I don't think I can ever pay off that intellectual debt and I feel absurdly lucky. But I knew them going into this process--and in many cases, had helped them in previous years when they were applying. I'm also guilty of favoritism myself: when I find applicants that I would have to have colleagues (either at my program or in academia more generally), I go out of my way to offer feedback on their work, their potential programs, create connections (etc). But--and here's the catch--I need to have a strong and favorable impression of someone (both as a potential friend and future colleague) already before I'm willing to go to such length. It's virtually impossible to create that sort of impression "cold-calling" through an email. In short, the power dynamics and the explicit favor-asking framework doesn't facilitate forming the sort of relationship that would motivate me (and I'd suspect, most grad students) to stick my neck out for you. Like foppery, if I'm not *too* busy, I will answer out of civility and give reasonably honest responses, but I'd be doing it largely out of a sense of obligation, rather than to insure that your application is as strong as it can be and that you're fully well informed. These emails, frankly, also take forever to write. Inafuturelife is also completely right on how "gossipy" graduate students (and faculty) are. Even if you aim your email carefully, only at the students working in your field...chances are, they're friends with each other (or at least speak to each other) and this will come up. I've seen it happen again and again, and the result is almost never positive. Of course we'll be civil (or simply not answer)...that isn't necessarily an indication that the email was successful. Connections matter in far more subtle ways than simply influencing admissions decisions--and this is part of why I emphasize that if a professor tells you to email someone and use their name, definitely do it. Whenever a friend or colleague (and certainly, a professor) sends "someone my way," I will always take the time to see that the student's concerns are addressed. I suspect that professors adopt a similar approach (though probably with a more complicated hierarchy). But unless you have some sort of an "in"...or a genuine, compelling question that can evade this "just tryin' to get my foot in the door" framework and catch the attention of the professor in question, I wouldn't recommend cold-emailing anyone. Professors are far too busy (and from my experience, usually annoyed even if they're too polite to let you know this) to look on an unsolicited email favorably. We grad students often feel the same way.

Just to clarify (because I'm a bit confused), you were rejected from an interest-free loan program, not an English graduate program, right? While it isn't true that "NO one applying to English graduate programs scores in the top 10% on the MATH score"--several of my good friends did, though I doubt that it was relevant or useful to their applications or their field--this still seems like an absolutely absurd requirement. But it is the requirement, so I don't know if there's anything that you can do about it. You can certainly try, but I wouldn't bank on it. If you don't mind me asking, why are you applying to this program anyway? Are you ultimately looking at English MA or PhD programs? (Do you have offers in hand already?) Most English PhD's will pay you to attend. (And while there are exceptions, you might want to be wary of offers that don't). Many MA's will as well. In any case, focus on the graduate school applications--not the quirky loan programs with absurd requirements.

I'm sure that you are right that UNC-CH is moving towards a direct-admit PhD process. (I can't speak first-hand, but have earlier similar news about other programs that currently ask all BA holders to apply to the MA program first, even if the expectation--and funding package--suggests that they would stay on for the full PhD). However, I do want to point out that choosing to NOT accept students with an MA is an entirely separate issue. Many programs (and just about all the strongest ones) accept will accept students with an MA, but basically expect them to reset the clock. They might be granted some transfer credits (usually up to a semester's worth), but not enough so that they can take orals or start their dissertation early. I wouldn't assume that a direct-admit process (which seems to be the "industry standard") signals an unwillingness to admit students that previously hold an MA. Most of those students--the well-informed ones, at least--expect to "start over" anyway when they begin their PhD's.

http://community.livejournal.com/wgi_lounge_2009/10017.html

This. There's an active debate about contacting professors. It *may* help, particularly if you have an adviser/another professor to smooth the way for you. (aka, if your adviser/professor/colleague is telling to do it, and offers to let you name-drop to establish a connection...do it). It might also help if you are very impressive AND articulate, and handle these delicate sorts of emails well. I really do think that it might actually *hurt* you if you come off as being obnoxious, irrelevant, asking the wrong sorts of questions, uninformed about the (sometimes obscure) parts of your field that the professor is interested in, etc. And frankly...now that I do field emails from college students (although not about admissions), even when they are trying very hard, they're often subtly but devastatingly off the mark. The stakes are pretty low when they, say, email me about a paper extension. The stakes are considerably higher if the professor you contact happens to be on the ad-comm, and doesn't walk away from the conversation with a favorable impression of your work. (Last year TA'ing for a professor who actually *was* on ad-comm, I heard plenty of complaints about applicants who did not create a favorable impression via email. Most of the time, they were extremely polite...it's just that this professor didn't see the necessity or particular value of that sort of contact, and was annoyed that s/he now has to take the time out of his/her already overscheduled day to deal with it). Granted, not every professor will respond this way...and granted also, that there are applicants who are sufficiently knowledgeable, with fascinating research interests, who do handle email conversations very well...and can cast favorable impressions even upon busy professors. But I would suspect that those individuals would probably have done just as well without contacting the professors. Personally, I didn't trust myself to "play that game." I don't think my unwillingness to contact professors hurt me, in any way, in the application process. I do "contact professors" now (that this is well behind me), but I could never successfully navigate the strange/awkward/doubled position of trying to BOTH establish a genuine contact as a scholar while jockeying for attention as an applicant. They're not mutually exclusive, but they do complicate one's subject position in ways that I didn't want to deal with.

Wow, I step out for a day, and miss all the fun. I wanted to revisit this from a very different perspective. The rankings DO matter...the way that fashion trends and celebrity endorsements have impact on sales. Whether or not they're "legitimate" or not, whether or not they reflect the real strengths and weaknesses of the program (they do and they don't, but they're unreliable either way)...as long as academics continue to believe in them, the "name brand" mystique that all too heavily influences USNWR will have some impact on how applicant from certainly programs are perceived. Thankfully, English academics tend to be (at their best) a self-critical lot and I suspect that the trend is moving away from a blind reliance on traditional name recognition. Although i do wonder about the extent to which USNWR ranking (or more simply, layman's name recognition) influences fellowship competitions, it seems that job search committees (placement is probably the single--if still incomplete--gauge of a program's quality) far less superficial...and seem to focus far more on the perceived quality of a candidate's diss (and of course. publication record...and depending on the job/school, teaching credentials) then the name on the diploma. Maybe the USNWR will eventually reflect these changes (though their methodology leaves much to desired)...but until then, I'd rather do my own research into who's doing what where in my field. After all, these are largely based on responses from professors about their perceptions of the quality of other departments. After speaking with over 3 or 5 dozen professors in a over a dozen schools (granted, this is over the span of 3 years)...I get the feeling that while they have a very good sense of what individual professors (especially in their field) are up to, their perceptions of other programs are VASTly outdated. Case in point: EVERY SINGLE PROFESSOR that I spoke with about Berkeley (except for the two that received their degrees from there recently), was convinced that the school admits 30-40 students per cohort and weeds them out over 2 years. I think that this was true at one point...but this hasn't been the case for years (decades, I think). And yet even professors who obtained their PhD's after this practice had been abolished still thought it was true. I'm sure that Berkeley isn't the only program suffering from this...I've heard the same said (repeatedly) of Columbia, Chicago, and Duke...and although I'm only familiar with one of these programs, I suspect that it's true for none for them. Professors don't always (frankly, rarely it seems) have an accurate perception of how the GRADUATE PROGRAMS at other schools are run (which is not to be confused with the academic work that their colleagues are producing)...and those are the very people who contribute to the rankings. Blind leading the blind, I tell you. * To address the the topic of this post...I think that "good" is at once too simplistic and too vague to capture the complexities of this process. I do think that every single school will admit applicants based on quality, "fit" and (usually but not always synonymous) the likelihood that they would accept the offer. Obviously, those are not discrete things--and for many (if not most) applicants, they're rolled up into the same issue: can you present a topic that is well suited for the resources of this program? Do the questions that you ask resonate with the admissions committee, or with their colleague's work? Does your writing sample pique their curiosity...and show that you have the skills (writing, research, methodology, sophistication, etc) to explore your research interests in a nuanced, responsible manner? And--this is utterly beyond our control (or knowledge) as candidates--does the program currently have enough resources to make room for you? Most of the time, I think that the "likelihood that you will accept" question is bound directly with "fit." But if you give a program reason to suspect otherwise (for those of us who oh-so-brilliant wrote in the wrong program name on the SoP!), this can become an a reason to disqualify your application. I suspect that if one isn't genuinely excited about a program (aka, if it's a safety for you)...and isn't sufficiently knowledgeable to have a sense of what it's looking for...it shows (even if you tried to mask it), and programs that are accustomed to a high declination rate might be especially sensitive to strong-but-less-enthusiastic applications. Nor do I think that this is only limited to lower-ranked programs. 3 of the programs that turned me down were ranked within the top ten (and, even if we toss out the rankings, are undisputabily among of the strongest in the country). Discussing my rejection with their DGS's, I was told that I would have received first-round offers if they weren't so sure that I would turn them down. (For what it's worth, they were right. My thinking has shifted drastically since I applied, but in December, I had one top choice and 9 absurdly selective "safety schools"). I won't get into what it is about my application that prompted them to believe this (it certainly isn't fit--all there are really great places for the sort of research that I want to do), but English ad-comms are incredibly good at reading in between the lines, even when we think that we've covered our tracks well. *grins* Not surprising, I suppose.

dc0ke: unless that is the norm for your program, RESIST! I took 4 seminar classes this past fall and nearly died. I was fairly lucky that 2 classes and 3 out of 4 final papers connected well with each other. I can't imagine writing four completely discrete seminar papers. 3 is doable (and fairly normal for the semester system). 4 is possible, but might make your life living hell by November/December. But still. It's gotta be a good sign that there are so many classes you're excited about that you're tempted to take four! mudgean: It depends on the format of the classes. I spent my first year in a program that was also on the quarter cycle. It's HELLISH (at least for the way I process). I took 3 classes every quarter, but only wrote seminar papers for some of them (I think 5 seminar papers total. Seminar paper = 20-30 page research paper). The other classes had "alternative" paper options, such as an take-home exam, annotated bib, shorter paper...etc. Even then--and without a teaching load to worry about--I found that to be difficult. The ten-week quarter REALLY screwed with my writing process. Research and writing: I think I'm fairly organized and diligent, but I've almost never finished all the readings for every class--certainly, not to the level of comprehension that I'd like. I'll get through most of it, but I'd always have to prioritize. It varies DRASTICALLY from professor to professor. Typically, we'll be assigned one major primary text (say, a 500 page victorian novel, or one or two Shakespeare play) every week, alongside 30-50 pages of secondary reading. That's "normal." One of my current classes assigned 300 pages of Lacan, Heidegger, Derrida, and a few other equally difficult theorists for a single class. (I read theory at perhaps a quarter of my normal reading speed...so this is like being given 1200 pages of worth "regular text"). I find that I'll typically spend between 10 and 20 hours reading for a single class, PLUS between 5 and 30 hours a week working on the presentation and paper(s) for that class. It's not so much a matter of time--it's the mental energy that the material and level of engagement will demand. Language classes tend to take up a lot of time, but not necessarily a lot of energy. You can kinda "march" through them with daily, diligent work, grapple with them (as I tend to do for semianrs/papers), but they can suck up a lot of time. Pedagogy: any particular reason for wanting/needing to take this? Are you teaching during your MA? Most PhD programs will make you take their own pedagogy class anyway...and taking an pedagogy class in advance is probably not very helpful.

Overall, I think this is a really nuanced, helpful, and accurate advice. I do have some questions regarding the section that I excerpted. Where are you getting the info that Berkeley and Michigan discourage students who apply with MA? I can say with a great deal of confidence (and for what it's worth, the hard numbers to back it) that this is untrue of Berkeley--though Berkeley's program has indeed changed drastically, so there's a very good chance that this was previously the case. Among Berkeley's current students, a third (often more) of each cohort came in with an MA degree. I'm less certain of Michigan, since I only have my own experience to draw on. But for what it's worth, I admitted (and heavily recruited) with an MA in hand. I won't go into the insane details of my situation, but in short...whatever disadvantages MA holders possess in the eyes of the committee were excerbated in my case. I have heard (from fairly good authority--someone in the program, relaying information from the DGS) that Michigan is reluctant to admit students straights out of undergrad (aka, applying before they've graduated), but that doesn't necessarily signal a preference for MA's. You're absolutely right to point out that MA students do need much more focused SoP's that show a better grasp of their field...and are probably expected to have stronger writing samples (though I wonder if a BA student with a slightly weaker writing sample would actually be admitted over an MA student with a weaker one). I would actually disagree on teaching experience, service, conferences, and publications (I certainly had none of the above--same goes for many of my very successful MA-holding peers). The attitude that I've encountered in to programs seems to privilege quality over quantity--especially for publications. I've been told again and again to not publish unless I can publish well (especially at this early stage)--and when my submissions are rejected from top journals, to wait until I've "reached that level" rather than settled for a "lesser" publication. That once my work is published, it will follow me around for eternity, even if it's of lower caliber than I will (hopefully) produce in the future--and that this can actually hurt me on the job market. Most of my peers in the first and second year cohorts of the program that I'm entering have not published--though frankly, if they merely wanted a publication, they could easily have snagged one by now. I do think that publication standard is probably a good goal for anyone applying to grad school, but particularly if one has an MA already (and greater exposure to what "publication standard" means in your field--I presume, among the top journals). But I don't think that MA-holders need to translate that into an actual publication in order to be successful...and (probably more controversial advice), one should not publish prematurally (the whole "(pre?)preprofessionalization argument") simply to obtain the line in the CV. Ad-comms will recognize a "publication level" writing sample, with or without the actual reference. As far as teaching goes...my experience (particularly this round, with an MA in hand) is limited to applying to programs that either heavily prioritized research over teaching, or prefer to train their own teachers. I had no teaching experience (or university service, for that matter) going in--and this definitely did not hurt me in the application process. I suspect that this may not be the case for programs with a slightly different sense of priorities, but the top programs in my field, at least, admit both BA and MA applicants for their research potential rather than teaching credentials.

Congrats. Rutgers is really an awesome program I've had my fingers crossed for you that you'd score with one of the waitlists. Considering what a rough/competitive year this has been, you should be awfully proud of yourself for catching the eye of multiple programs, even if your lack-of-MA-training (rather than the MA per se) might have hindered you from first-round offers.

It completely depends on the program, but if you are indeed high on the list, your chances can be quite strong. In any case, at least your choices are clear-cut: some applicants are waitlisted at their top choices while accepted into less desirable programs. Since they must observe the April 15th deadline, they might accept the standing offer and give up the possibility of the waitlist...which should prune down that list considerably.

You don't *need* an MA per se (I was accepted 2 years ago with only a BA), but I think that Buffalo does seem to prefer applicants with a fairly developed sense of what they want to study. An MA is often helpful (though not necessary) in the regard.

Congrats on making a decision! I suspect that you would have done well at either programs--but it must feel wonderful to settle into a choice. Excited is definitely the right way to begin a program

Just a quick question/point of clarification. Did the graduate student profiles specify that the students were enrolled in the MA program prior to the PhD program? (Alternatively, does UPenn suggest that they do take their own MA's)? I don't have any info on this either way, specifically in regards to UPenn, but I do know that many PhD students (who were never in a MA program to begin with) will list the MA that they received "en route." I'm not entirely sure why, but I suspect it's one way of indicating where they are in their PhD careers without specifying the year they entered the program. (Since orals--when the MA is usually conferred "en route"--tends to be the dividing line between "older" and "younger" PhD students). It can make a difference if they're applying for teaching positions or fellowships. In other words, unless there's indication otherwise, many of the UPenn PhD students who list a UPenn MA might never have gone through the MA program.

I'm not sure that ancedote about Harvard Law is relevant to this discussion, which focuses on the particularities of English PhD programs. Harvard will always have an aura for "layman"...but I think that's exactly part of what we are trying to circumvent. You mentioned that you applied while working full-time. If I may interject, you're not the only one. I don't necessarily see that as a uncircumventable disadvantage, though it certainly makes the application process harder. Undergrads who apply while in school are at a disadvantage (though time pressure is by no means the only issue at play--scholarly maturity has as much or more to do with it). It's a matter of marshalling one's time and energies, prioritizing carefully and taking risks, as we all do. I'm not sure that one can draw a simplistic connection between quality of applications and the amount of time you spend on them. It's a fine balancing act of time, knowledge, aptitude, scholarship, networks, etc, etc. For what it's worth, I also worked extensively (60-100 hours a week) during the summer before my first round of applications, while working on my writing sample and SoP. I left what was a relatively lucrative job that fall (which for me, meant moving onto a friend's couch) when I realize that I needed to devote more time to applications. I do have middle-class parents who would have helped should I ask, but I'm not someone who would ever ask. During this most recent round, I overloaded on graduate-level classes, while working and commuting over 2 hours every day. My applications did suffer to some degree (I did not apply to one school because, after 24 hours of working straight, I could not marshal the energy to finish my fit paragraph in time), but I still have no reason to complain. And I'm definitely not the only one. Most of my colleagues and friends who applied (particularly this round) were juggling other commitments and demands--which often includes a family (one friend gave birth during this process!) and a current career. In short, while time to devote to applications is a luxury, I don't think it's absolutely necessary. One does need to learn to compensate for the lack of time (and to plan accordingly--which probably means starting early), but this may be why many of us who better on later rounds. You keep using the term "a privileged few"...and I'm trying to understand what you mean by it, or what their precise advantage in this application might be. I have no doubt that applicants who need not devote time to supporting themselves during this process, who went to well-respected schools, have close relationships with well-respected professors, who have easy access to library and archival resources...etc, etc...do have an advantage. What I'm suggesting, however, is that bulk of that advantage isn't unique--while one might have to do a bit more work, it is possible to be competitive against these "privileged few" if one arms oneself with knowledge and preparation. That is, after all, part of where websites like these come in.

YAY! Congrats! Duke's a fantastic program (though I'm glad to see that NYU made you an offer as well). You were innudated with good options...but I'm not surprised that Duke rose to the top on your list.

The lit GRE score should be the least of your concerns (seriously!). Many schools don't require it, and even some programs that do will not actually look at it. Programs that require and consider your lit GRE score won't weigh it heavily...it is probably the single least important piece of your application. (for what it's worth, an acquaintance who scored disastrously is currently choosing between Berkeley and Harvard, alongside a slew of other peer programs). How seriously are you looking at trauma studies? You might also want to look interdisciplinary studies and/or some comp lit programs. This isn't necessarily a decision you have to make now--an English MA can still be a good springboard for those programs. For future reference (since they don't have an MA program), you might want to consider Michigan if you do indeed go into disability studies. I've heard UIC mentioned as well, largely because of Lenny Davis. I'm sure that there are many others.

As poppyensemble and dietc0ke already noted, this seems like an extreme and unfair response to something that the graduates have absolutely no control over. While the question still strikes me as a bit odd, given NYU's sense of commitment to the city, it's actually reasonable. This question came up again during the (group) interview, and it was posed in such a way as to emphasize that they're looking for intellectual reasons (ie, aside from the fact that NYU is here, and the fact that NYC is generally a cool place to live). One student--whose work is relevant for this answer--cited the proximity of pop culture. Another mentioned theaters (again, relevant to this student's work). I flailed badly but eventually pointed to archival access. I definitely have the worst answer of the group (but this was probably understandable, given the nature of my work), but still got in--which might say something about how this answer is evaluated in their admissions process. (As I noted earlier, I also neglected to address it at all in my SoP). The current grad students that I met were nothing like what you're insinulating. Most of them are far cooler than I am, but I tend to admire that (and see it with a touch of envy), rather than hold it against them. And they're certainly serious scholar who can talk passionately and insightfully about their work. I have some reservations about these generalizations. With the caveat that I just turned down Michigan, I'm not entirely sure that it was fair to rag on them for the location. Ann Arbor is actually a really remarkable place--while I have no complaints about the city that I will be living in, do I rather wish that I could have brought AA along as well. I also met most of the admitted students this year. While there are always one or two (as there will be in almost every group) that don't seem to know what they want to do with their lives or the degree that they're looking to acquire, most of the students are clearly not there simply to "duck into grad school to hide out." What you also seem forget here is that Michigan, despite whatever misgivings one might have about the midwest (does it show that I'm a midwesterner?), is an absolutely top-rate program. It makes sense (and to me, seems obvious) that the strengths of the program itself--rather than economic conditions--are attracting applications. And for what it's worth, Michigan received *slightly* fewer applications this year, so I suspect that whatever "economic spike" we might see in applications is off-step by the fears (unjustified, certainly in this case) that Michigan is less fiscally sound thanks to its public school status. [i can't speak for all the public programs, but I do know that Berkeley also received slightly fewer applications this year, despite rising in the rankings].

Does school B happen to be Villanova? If so, I'd go with school B. (for the record, I once "followed the money" and was utterly miserable at the program that I choose because of it. I think it's a fine calibration between going to the place that can help you produce your best work, and making that decision financially feasible). While many students from less prestigious (but funded) MA programs have indeed done *very* well with PhD applications, there results are generally not consistent. Villanova (in my recollection) has a very strong PhD placement record. You might actually want to inquire directly into this. While I do think that choosing a funded MA is generally wiser than, say, paying tuition for an MA from an Ivy, you're really looking at two funded options--even if the funding levels are different. A few things to consider: 1. My experience with top PhD programs (over three years, I've applied to something like 20 out of the top 25, and were accepted into most of them at one point or another) is that they care FAR more about your research/scholarship then they do about teaching experience. The comp teaching (versus tutoring) can be icing on the cake for some schools, but I don't think it will influence the ad-comms significantly either way. 2. A 2:1 load is a quite a lot. I'm reading (grading only, no discussions or teaching) for one class and it sucks out huge chunks of my time. While I'm still able to focus on my work, I've had to cut down on my class load significantly to compensate. And this is a 25% load...so it's more like a 0.5 load per semester. Personally speaking, I wouldn't be able to focus on my work if I'm teaching more than 1 class (generally considered a 50% load). 3. My experience at places with a terminal MA in addition to the PhD program is that the PhD students will get the lion's share of attention. This isn't necessarily a huge problem, if you tend to work well with a hands-off adviser, but it's something to keep in mind while making decisions. 4. Outside of the one professor, which school is a bit fit for your interests? (along the same lines, how committed are you to your interests?). Considering that you have some funding from both schools, I'd go with the program that will let you produce better work, particularly if it also has a better track record with placement. If I were in your shoes, I'd go with program B--but I may have a different set of priority. I'd be willing to take on some loans (say, 5-10K) in order to attend a program that is a better fit for me. Brief note: I was heavily courted by a program two years ago, and ended up going to it...in part, assuming that since they apparently wanted me so badly (potential advisers calling, top fellowship) I would have little trouble getting attention/advising when I needed it. I was totally wrong. I'll share you the details, but it suffices to say that my thesis adviser (who did most of the courting when I was an applicant) never read a single draft of my thesis...and i sent him over a dozen drafts, over the course of 4 months. Other professors who had called me weekly never bothered to hand back seminar papers, or provide feedback. I don't know how typical my situation is, but the level of attention during recruitment doesn't necessarily reflect what you'd receive as a student. Some schools are notorious for recruiting very well (Rutgers, Michigan), but while they are indeed strong programs, it doesn't necessarily mean you'll receive less attention at a program that doesn't have an insitutional history of puttin' on the ritz in March and April.

WORD. This seriously makes a difference, and I wish more programs would realize it. (Berkeley's website give me a headache--and I knew what I was looking for to begin with. I know of numerous top candidates who were discouraged from applying simply because they couldn't figure out who's in their field!). A dynamic, helpful website that lays out the necessary information not only gives candidates a better impression of the program, but allows them to be more self-selective, and for those that do apply, to present better tailored statements. This is a relatively "easy" fix (not that I know anything about maintaining websites) that could potentially have a huge payoff. I'm looking at you, Berkeley (though they are by no means the only offender): I will organize your damned website myself, if anyone wants to give me a free rein.