strokeofmidnight

I'm glad that we're having this discussion. I have a really complex relationship with the top programs (including Berkeley, which I will be attending), and these comments have helped to clarify and pinpoints some of the specific issues behind my ambivalence. (for clarification, I'm somewhat arbitrarily including JHU, Duke, Chicago, Stanford and Berkeley alongside "the Ivys" for the purposes of this discussion. This is largely due to perceived prestige: I'd argue that Rutgers, Michigan, UVa, and UCLA [among others that are not on my radar] are also peer universities, I don't think that they are generally discussed with the same bated breath as the "traditional" elites. It may be worth noting that those are all public schools). On the one hand, my sense is that many of the "elite" programs do rest on their laurels--though this is not to suggest that they don't deserve these accolades in the first place. Consistently, some of the most brilliant students that I've come across were from the Ivy's. I just came back from a conference in which the 3 out of the 4 most insightful presentations were given by students from (which I discovered only later) Berkeley, Princeton, and Columbia. The different was palpable, but not absolute--I've encountered many students at "other" programs who are remarkably well-trained, and could easily out-shine their "elite-school"-trained peers. What I'm awkwardly suggesting, I suppose, is that while the "top schools" don't have a monopoly on brilliant students, they often (not always!) do have a higher concentration of them. I spent my first year in a PhD program outside of the top 20. (I had turned down several "elite" schools for this program, which I thought was a better fit for me--hello foppery!). It was disappointing, though it's hard to parse how much of that was due to the eccentricities of my personal experience, and how much can be attributed to the institution at large. Although I did well, I nearly left grad school altogether after my first year. I spent the next year (this school year) as a visiting student at one of the "elite" programs...and the difference was simply incredible. While there are exceptions on both sides (the single most brilliant student that I know is at my old school), the level of class discussion, presentations, papers...was incomparable. Perhaps I've simply been lucky/unlucky in the classes that I choose, but the constellation of brilliant and prepared (this last qualification is key) students elevated the discourse and, very palpable to me, the level of my own scholarship. There's something about this "elite" program that enabled me to do my best work, in ways that my non-top-20 school just couldn't. (Now whether or not that has anything to do with their elite/non-elite status is an entirely different issue). This experience changed shaped the list of schools that I applied to. Every single one of the 10 programs that I applied to were in the top 20, mostly clustered within the top 10. I based my selections on academic fit (though I was wrong about at least 2 schools, and probably should have swapped them out for 2 or 3 others), but also with an eye towards the kinds of training/atmosphere/peers that (I presume--and here lies the danger) these programs might provide. And perhaps this is where a bit of self-confession comes in handy: after my first round (I applied up and down the top 50), I knew that I would be competitive for the "elite" schools (though the vicissitudes of this process undermined whatever confidence I was tempted to place in that knowledge). This gave me a certain latitude to be more discerning in later rounds. I crossed off programs that would have been a "good fit" but lacked a strong placement record--this especially affected schools ranked in the 20's, 30's, and 40's. Still, I'd disagree with Manatee's mantra that one *shouldn't* go to a program outside the top 20. One should think long and harder (probably longer and harder than I did) when turning down "elite" programs for a program outside of that group, but there are plenty of circumstances that would lend themselves to choosing the "lower-ranked" school.

While I can understand and appreciate your good intentions (though I think my critique--and those of many others--still stands), I find your disclaimer to be a bit difficult to reconcile with the example that you are giving. You say you're not pretending to be a therapist. Fair enough, but the parallels between the story you describe and the advice (specifically, the method and response) is doing exactly what you claim you're not: casting you in the role of the therapist. If I'm reading this correctly, we're meant to see this as clarifying your role in making these comments: just as you were once bright-but-misguided, and fought with the therapist (who turned out to be right), we're to see ourselves as bright-and-misguided, and arguing with you now, we will also come to see that your hard-knock perspective is more realistic and insightful than our own myopic views? In GRE fashion (apologies in advance), it strikes me as something like this: Therapist:you :: You:advice-seekers This, I think, is precisely, my beef with how you've approached these posts. There's a constant implication that you know what's best for the rest of the posters here. On the one hand, admittedly, we don't tend to give advice unless we think we have anything useful to say (and indeed, as i've noticed, some of your advice is quite accurate). But there's something about the non-reflexive way in which you deliver it--without really questioning whether or not that advice is applicable to our situations, our goals, the current state of our talents (as virtually everyone has protested)--that seems unhelpful, even arrogant.

I don't know. I think we're coming from entirely different perspectives/set of values, so it's hard to me to offer advice. I can't imagine myself pursuing any other career path (and I spent two years trying other things), so a $3500 penalty wouldn't prevent me from accepting a funded offer from a program that I like. Then again, I only applied to programs that I really wanted to attend (especially this round) and had already decided--pending an unexpectedly horrific visit--that I would definitely accept an offer from any of my 10 schools. Only one of my programs might not have offered full funding (as as it turns out, they did come through with a fellowship)...and even then, it was my top choice, so I knew in advance that I would accept regardless of how things turn out. In the others, I dealt with the "if" I'd go decision before I even submitted applications. I suppose I'll just reiterate my original comment: figure out WHY you applied to this program in the first place, and what you hope to accomplish there. $3500 isn't a lot of money in the grand scheme of things, if grad school (and this school in particular) would facilitate your goals. But if you're interested in a career path that doesn't necessary require grad school, and/or taking this offer would entail giving up a job that you already enjoy/pays the rent, then you might want to reconsider. Still, I think the gravity of the decision (in a sense, choosing your future career) should entail a wider set of considerations then the moving issues alone. But then again, that's just me.

I'm not sure that this is enough to counter what everyone else has said already. This sort of thing may vary from field to field, but frankly, in my field, studying for the GRE's and paying the application fees DOESN'T constitute thinking long and hard about what you want--and whether or not the PhD program can help you achieve (not to mention...at what cost, in what field/subfield, under which programs, etc, etc). This sounds like adequate preparation for choosing a college, but nowhere near sufficient for choosing a PhD program. At the risk of being blunt, I would suspect (though again, I'm not in your field) that part of the reason that your field indeed has a 50% drop-out is because too many (admittedly intelligent) people enter without fully comprehending why they are there, or what they want to get out of it. Think through those questions first--especially if you may be giving up a great job in order to pursue this option.

While there are some good advice here, I think you're mischaracterizing how much applicants know going into this process--especially those on this (and other such) forums. We know perfectly well what the job market looks like. We know that what the odds are. I don't think most of us are doing this out of ignorance, or an inflated sense of our own talent. A bit of fact-checking might also be in order. Michigan doesn't have the highest stipend of the public universities. Aside from a handful of special fellowships, I'm pretty sure that honor belongs to Rutgers. Over the course of 3 years, I was accepted into 8 public schools--5 of which gave higher offers than the amount you named for Michigan. And the funding that you listed for Michigan, while accurate for some, isn't true across the broad. Finally, while 15-25K (the range of offers that I've seen) isn't incredibly generous, it *is* enough to live on without resorting to ramen--I've been doing it for two years. There's a smigeon of Ivy League elitism going on here, which I find to be a bit misleading. (For what it's worth, I also entertained 2 Ivy offers, and turned them down for a comparable offer from a public school). I think you fairly accurately characterize what "it" entails, and that professors are indeed trained to pick which applications can show evidence of this elusive "it." The one thing that I would disagree with is that you seem to assume that one either "has it" or doesn't. I think that it is true that some graduate hopefuls don't "have it" and never will. And it's also true that some obviously "have it" even as undergrads. But many of us--and I'd put myself firmly in this camp--took a while to figure out what "it" is and to acquire it in time for grad school. Looking at my writings in undergrad (always a painful experience), it was pretty obvious that I was clueless, and would have had no chance of getting in anywhere. I choose not to apply that yet, but had I done so (as many applicants do--apply straight out of undergrad), I would have faced across-the-board rejections. I obviously didn't have it. I was fairly lucky during my first round--I did well, but frankly, I *still* barely had it either. It took two years for me to finally figure out what skills are actually needed for my scholarship, and finally begin to acquire those and put them together in a useful manner. I think many, if not most English PhD hopefuls can indeed acquire this elusive quality even if they didn't come out of undergrad with "it" under their belts already. This is, after all, what a good MA program would ideally prime one to acquire...though I think there's much to be said for independent scholarship. Your description of the role that "numbers" play in the admission process is pretty accurate, I think--or at least, it correlates with my own experience. I also agree--and I've stated this many times--that applicants over-emphasize the importance of numbers and misdirect their energy. But virtually every "strong applicant" that I've encountered already knows this. They might be nervous that, say, a 400 on the Lit GRE might keep them out...but on some level, they understand that it's the writing that really counts.

You can at least ask about deferring. They can't take away your acceptance letter simply because you're looking into that possibility. It helps, though, to have a solid reason why: most of the deferrals that I've encountered were for fairly serious medical issues or really compelling scholarship reasons. Think about why you applied to Knoxville in the first place. Was it a good fit for your work? Is it still? What would you gain from the year off, in terms of preparing yourself to be a better scholar/applicant? Are you hoping for a better offer the next time that you apply? Are you willing to take the risk that that doesn't materialize? Will this year abroad still be worth it? What can you do during the year abroad to improve your scholarship/profile. You mentioned talking with faculty, and while that can be helpful, it has had little effect in influencing ad-comms in my experience. (I didn't contact faculty and did quite well. Some of my friends who did actually fared worse at places where they had contacts--personally, I think the difference it makes is small, if any).

Our undergrad backgrounds are virtually identical. I also went to a "good large private school"--well-regarded overall, but a bit less so for English programs. I doubled-majored in English (alongside another, related field). I took virtually all of my English courses senior year, and was not able to do a thesis. Our GRE scores are in the same ballpark. Although my grades are a bit higher, YOUR grades are good enough that it shouldn't hurt you in this process. Like stormydown, I combined two related papers into a single writing sample (obvious, it required heavy revision--6 month's worth, in my case). I took 2 years off (did not do anything vaguely academic) before applying straight to PhD programs, and fairly pretty successful right off the bat: half of the 15 programs (virtually all top 20) that I applied to accepted me. It's impossible to tell from the information that you posted whether or not you'll be competitive for strong PhD programs (as noted, it really is ALL about the writing sample and SoP), but there's nothing that raises a red flag or suggests that you *shouldn't* aim for PhD programs. Would you be willing to mention why you think you're not ready? You might be entirely right--but I'm not seeing the reason from the numbers/background info alone. Also, I would caution against applying to a "big name" for the MA for the sake of perceived. I think you're far better off going to a funded MA--prestige doesn't work the same way as with colleges (or, though it shouldn't, even with PhD programs). Vaguely speaking, a funded MA from what might be (to the layman) a no-name school is often viewed far more positively then paying for your MA at an Ivy. The overall name/funding status of your program also matters far, far, far less than what you learn/produce. Although this is a generalization with many exceptions, most funded MA's are in programs without a PhD cohort, where you are far more likely to have access to your professor's time/attention then if you were competing with (usually funded) PhD students. I've cited these numbers elsewhere, but at the (top 5) program that I will be attending, only 2 out of the 10 MA holders came out of "well-known" programs. The rest came out of "no-name" schools that obviously prepared them very well for the PhD pool.

I think you're making all the right moves. However, you might want to consider spending even *more* time on your writing sample (and SoP), and soliciting peer critique in addition to speaking with faculty members--especially if you're taking courses at a strong program. (I find that the easiest way to do so is to offer to my help with *their* work first--and the resulting dialogue has been an unexpected source of ideas and support). I followed a near-identical path this last round, though I didn't plan it that way. I edited the *heck* out of a paper over the summer, only to finally set it aside when I discovered that I was falling in love with one of my classes. I ended up using the (new) seminar paper as a writing sample, and also soliciting LoR's from that professor (and another from the same program). The only *real* difficulty is timing: I knew that I would need to ask for LoR's before Thanksgiving, and that I would need to have submitted both a draft of my final paper for both classes, as well as a pretty polished version of my WS and SoP before I can ask. I also had to re-write my SoP completely, since I shifted fields between when I first wrote it over the summer, and when I finally submitted my application. It meant that September and October were absolutely hellish...but at least, I survived, so I assume that it's possible. If you're pursuing this route, just make sure to front-load your work for that class (or whatever classes you're planning to acquire LoR's from) and clear off your plate for that semester. I'm not sure that my cautionary note is at all relevant, but I will put it out there just in case. I'm absolutely glad that I asked for LoR's from my top choice (say, program A), and even more grateful that I took classes there in the first place. And in some respects, that did help during my applications, certainly at program A, but also elsewhere. But it also hurt my odds at other programs--where the DGS's told me, point blank, that I would have been accepted were they not certain that I would end up attending program A anyway. It still worked out very well for me because program A was indeed a top choice (and every other school was, in some ways, a back-up though I applied only to the top), but had I been more ambivalent about program A, I might have placed myself in a difficult position. To some degree, the circular logic of this dilemma sort of works itself out: other schools assumed that I would go to program A because it pretty obvious that it was the best fit for me. I'm pretty sure that if this wasn't the case, the other programs would be less inclined to make that assumption and might have extended an offer. So again, I'm not all sure that this merits a warning, but considering that you may be in a similar circumstance (I can't quite tell from the details given), I figured that it's at least worth taking into consideration.

I applied 3 times as well. I just accepted an offer from my top choice program (ranked within the top 5, if we place any weight in those things). My trajectory is pretty unusual in that I was a strong applicant from the very first round (top ten, ivy league PhD offers each time), but there's a nevertheless a noticeable difference in the results between my first and final rounds...and I think I've learned a lot from the process. Following my professors' advice, I didn't pursue what seems like common methods for re-applicants this last round. I did not submit to conferences (I would have, but didn't have the time to invest in this), didn't contact professors, and didn't publish. The last point is controversial, but at least worth putting out there. My sense is that attitude in "top programs" towards publication privileges quality over quantity. My professors made it very clear that they would rather see me publish one or two very strong articles (during the course of my grad career, not in preparation for applications), placed at top journals than have a slew of essays of lower caliber. The overwhelming advice is that if my work isn't accepted by the top journals, I should take the criticism to heart and improve until I actually get to "that point." Part of the logic behind this advice that is once it's out there, a publication will follow you around for the rest of your life, even if your work has mature well past that point. You want to make sure what's out there represents your best work, though it's obviously a balancing act since we are (hopefully) improving and growing constantly. Looking at the CV's of newly hired professors who recently acquired what I'd consider "dream jobs," I'm inclined to agree with this approach. It's worth noting, though, that this approach does entail a lot of assumptions--which are largely true for me, and most of my peers at the program that I will be attending--but which nevertheless would not make it suitable for everyone. Consequently, I turned down a few publication opportunities (graduate journals, conference proceedings, etc)--the relatively "easier" line in my CV--in order to submit only to top journals. I haven't put in a submission yet, so I can't say how well this will turn out (though my adviser, who edits peer journals, is quite hopeful). I'm also sure that I will receive a few refusals before anyone picks up on this--but I'm hoping that the feedback will be useful in improving both the specific piece and my scholarship at large. I've been turned down by top journals in the past (with a different article), and while I finally decided to shelf that article, the sharp, even harsh feedback that I received was absolutely instrumental in shaping how I approached my work...and indirectly, at least partially responsible for my success this round. What I'm suggesting, I suppose, is to make sure that your focus is directed towards strengthening your scholarship (which is never wasted effort for an academic!) rather than strengthening your CV. The two are obviously not mutually exclusive, but thinking in terms of the former rather than the latter might cause you to adjust how to approach parts of the application. My CV looks pretty paltry. I knew that going into this process, but didn't necessarily consider this to be a handicap (and I'm fairly sure that it wasn't viewed as such by my programs). My transcripts are solid, although the school name isn't impressive. But my writing improved monumentally, and that--undoubtedly--is what got me in. I'm told that I was accepted over students with numerous publications, conference, networking experience...but while those details do help to catch the eye of the ad-comms, they're paying far more attention to quality (and fit) over everything else.

I'd second this, though my perspective is probably colored from my status as a PhD applicant (aka, stipend = at least $15K, or something that doesn't require loans). My undergrad professors had emphasized "go big, or go home"--which doesn't necessarily mean only high-ranking/prestigious schools, but it does mean only accepting (or for that matter, applying to) programs that would train me well and prepare me to be competitive on the job market. Of Ole Miss is as bad as your professors suggest that it is, how useful will that degree for you? How good will that training be? Will be you competitive if you decide to apply for PhD programs? It looks as though you'll have a debtload either way ($3600 won't get me through a summer, though I do live in a very expensive part of the country). Is that debt worth the training/opportunities you'll gain from either program?

Are you absolutely sure that you won't have time to visit? I think that would help to settle a lot of issues. I don't know enough to recommend one option over another, but I did want to weigh in on some details. School B: 9K for 4 classes a year is a bit exploitative. Are the two classes per semester different sections of the same class (aka, less work) or two different classes that require considerably more prep time? My undergrad professors stressed that I should avoid programs that require teaching more than one course a semester, and from my experience, this seems like sound advice. I'm teaching now (sort of), and it really takes up a lot of time. I can't imagine doing "good work" if I were to teach two classes at the same time--especially early on in my grad career. School A: You said that you're going for an MA, but that they have a PhD option as well? What is the relationship between the PhD and the MA program like? My partner obtained his MA at a program that has a separate PhD track. Although he landed in a very strong PhD program (much stronger than the program at his MA institution, which also accepted him when he reapplied), he found that he couldn't really compete with the PhD students for his professor's time and attention. This isn't always the case, but--as someone who is now looking at PhD programs with terminal MA tracks--it may be worth considering. It's also worth noting: I never know what to make of MA placements (aka, where the MA students have gone onto PhD programs). While it would be troubling if the MA students never place well, I'm not entirely convinced that a handful of good placements (assuming that they are the exception rather than the rule) is necessarily an indication of quality. On the one hand, my partner willingly acknowledges that he would never have gotten into a good PhD program without his MA year. On the other hand, looking at him (and the 3 or 4--out of 20--students from his MA cohort who also placed well), I suspect that it has more to do with their own aptitude rather than the program's efforts. In other words, while they needed an MA year to "season" their scholarship, they might have done well coming out of any MA program, rather than that specific one.

Absolutely go to the top program. It sounds as though the two of you have already figured out how to make a long-distance relationship possible, so although it will be difficult, it's not as though you're absolutely choosing between the relationship and your top choice. I'm extremely fortunate that I will be attending my partner's program this fall (and it happens to be the best program for both of us), but we spent 8 out of the past 10 years we've been together either commuting long distances (200+ miles every week), or simply living apart. It has actually worked out reasonably well. Only once did I made an academic choice partly out of consideration for him (I turned down an funded PhD offer from an Ivy in part because it was on the "wrong coast"). Although he never asked me to do so, the resentment that I felt afterwards (especially when the program that I did attend turned out to be a horrible choice) nearly wrecked the relationship. Forgive me if this is already obvious, but I think that choosing what is the best option for you isn't any indication that you love your boyfriend less, or are less committed to the relationship. It isn't a matter of proving that you love him--but rather that making the best choices for the two of you as a couple often means attending to your own happiness. I firmly believe that a steady relationship requires two happy people--which, in your case, seems that it would entail pursuing your academic goals at the best program for you. I also want to second the job market considerations. I don't know what the market is like for your field, but it's absolutely awful in mine. If my partner and I want any chance of obtaining academic jobs within commuting distance of each other (which will heavily restrict our options), we'll both need to be strong scholars. Going to a top program (one that is particularly well suited for my research) won't guarantee it, but it will increase the likelihood that we can choose/find jobs given those geographic restrictions.

I can't speak for USC, but I've lived in Champaign-Urbana and had considered an offer from UIUC. CU is actually a decent place to live (especially if you hunt for housing in Urbana). It's a bit small-townish, but not too claustaphobic...and it has a particular midwestern liberal, hippy feel (a bit like Ann Arbor, if you've ever been there). It's also within driving distance of Chicago, if you have a car (there's an Amtrak line if you don't). Town and Gown relationships are decent (I was part of the "town" half). UIUC seems to be an up-and-coming program for theory overall, though I don't know about queer studies in particular. I don't know if "historical" placement rates are very useful...my sense of both programs is that they're much better now then what they used to be, so while neither has placed particularly well in the past, I think that's been changing recently.

Very true. It's also worth noting, fit (which is always important) becomes absolutely critical if you're applying with an MA in hand (or, if you're a PhD transfer student). If you've already taken graduate-level courses (as a graduate student--BA taking grad course don't quite count in this respect), you're expected to present as far more thought-out, specific project. The dangers of doing so, of course, is that the more specific it is, the more important fit (and faculty) become. This round, 7 out of the 10 programs that I applied to were *really* good fits for me. Not surprisingly, the remaining 3 all turned me down. Out of the 7 "good fits"...5 accepted me, and the remaining two basically told me that they "would have accepted me, but..." (I'd rather not go into it, but there's a quirk about my application that makes me a pretty controversial applicant). If you're applying with an MA in hand, fit becomes utterly and absolutely critical. The programs know that while you can still change your mind, you're likely to be at a less formative "place" than someone with only a BA--and they'll want to make sure that your current "form" (approach, methodology, whatever you want to call it) is well in line with their own, even if you received your previous grad training elsewhere. As someone who is switching programs with an MA in hand, I think it's actually *really* valuable to take a least a year's worth of coursework at whatever program you enter. You'd want the opportunity to work with professors before choosing committee members...and coursework (as annoying as it is) can actually be a really profound period of scholarly growth. It's also worth noting, depending on your individual circumstances (and to some degree, how badly the program wants you), even schools that discourage/disallow transferring previous coursework might be willing to make exceptions. (it helps if the bulk of your coursework is taken under a peer institution). Three of the programs that accepted me offered to let me transfer far more classes than what their guidelines (formal or informal) suggested would be possible. One of those explicitly states on the website that require anyone with an MA (or a PhD transfer student) to start over in terms of coursework...so even if the language is tough, if the program is really exciting and interesting for you (and you're convinced that you're a good fit), apply anyway and see what they offer when/if they accept you.

I was fairly successful applying with a BA only--was accepted into 7 programs, 6 of which were in the "top 20" (for whatever that's worth). I did take two years off, which was absolutely critical. Looking at where my writing/thinking was during my senior year, I would have gotten in absolutely nowhere had I tried to apply then. Even two years of working various non-intellectual jobs helped to to distill my focus and training. These two rounds are not comparable (I applied in different fields, and with entirely different methodological approaches), but I was actually far more successful when I applied with an MA under my belt. It may or may not make a difference that my MA was earned "en route" while in a PhD program. (Some programs explicitly will not accept applicants who are essentially "transfer" students even if they're willing to start over. Some might conceivably view my training to be of a higher caliber since it's PhD rather than MA level coursework. I suspect that the plus and minuses--as compared with a terminal MA--probably balanced each other other). The "MA" (or more specifically, graduate-level coursework) was really useful in enabling me to learn how to adjust my methodology, how to come up with an original, well-researched argument, etc, etc....even though I did not take any classes in my field during this time. And for what it's worth, I also took graduate-level classes as an undergrad. They were helpful and I did well in them, but for some reason, I simply wasn't ready to really make use of them. It took a certain amount of maturity and distance before graduate training became truly productive.

I posted about this on a personal journal, and two friends in academia who sort-of know his situation actually defended him. While neither saw his application nor directly had him in class, both actually pretty pretty positive things to say. A colleague of one friend taught his class while he was an undergrad. He was apparently very hard-working and pretty smart. Another friend mentioned that his PhD application was actually solid. I'm not sure exactly what that means, but apparently, it was at least respectable. I don't know whether or not his fame influenced decisions, but at least it looks like he won't be embarrassing Yale while enrolled as one of their students. Rumor has it that he's an early modernist.

It depends on where you want to go with this. There are several different programs that work on textual studies, medium studies...also try googling "history of the book." I know of graduate students at Berkeley, NYU, Michigan, and UPenn who are working on these issues in one way or another. This topic (at least in the form that I encountered) tends to cross field lines. One student at Berkeley is working on *both* the medieval manuscript and the digital age. Another (different) Berkeley student works mostly on print culture, the epistemology of print production...but is also writing on the kindle and the changes that it introduces into how we interact with books/materiality of reading. I don't have specific examples for the other programs, but I do know that medium, media, history of the book (broadly construed), textuality seem very important to NYU: that was certainly how they defined themselves during their recruitment/interview weekend. Most of the professors that I know of who are working on this issue are 18th centuryist, but that probably says more about my myoptic perspective than the program on the whole. I know less about UPenn, but it routinely comes up as one of the top programs for the "history of the book." This is a slightly different angle, but if you're interested in poetics (which, of course, also deals with textuality and medium), UPenn's poetics faculty is second to none. I did not encounter Michigan students who are interested in textuality (largely because I wasn't specifically looking for it), but several of their professors seem interested in this topic. In addition to Theresa Tinkle, Tina Lupton (an 18th centuryist) is currently working on textuality, medium, questions of how we read...etc. If you're looking at the digital stuff, also look into Tung-Hui Hu. He's asking question about film, voice, textuality, and medium in ways that are really fascinating. He's not in my field, but I still find his work to be relevant for the breadth of the questions that he poses. If you wouldn't mind offering a bit more about your work, I might be able to give more specific suggestions. Textuality is such a huge topic, which takes on different forms in different fields. In any case, I think it's cool and exciting, and hope that you find a good place to pursue it.

I'm declining Cornell and Brown. I have 3 remaining offers in play, and should make a final decision from among those shortly after this coming weekend. If anyone is waiting on Cornell, I know of four other students (3 of whom are not in gradcafe, and none of them have posted here) who either have already, or will definitely be turning down the offer. It's worth noting, most schools will overaccept. While there's a few (NYU and UPenn comes to mind) that make exactly as many numbers as they have spots and go to the waitlist at the first declination, some programs will give out up to twice as many offers as they have spots--if not more. Fingers crossed!

At most of the top programs (at least the ones that i considered), the emphasis is heavily on scholarship rather than teaching. Teaching is largely viewed as either a complementary skill, or a necessary one to acquire for the sake of the job market--but the focus is always on research. Some might say too much so, but that's a personal choice/perspective. it may be true that at some programs, grad students are teaching slaves...but this is definitely not true among most programs within the top 25...most of those schools will provide as many (or close to it) teaching-free fellowship years as years spent teaching one course each semester while you continue your own work. What makes you think that comp classes are soul-sucking? It depends on how the class is structure...how much freedom you have over the syllabus, how good your students are, how you handle teaching...etc, etc. I complain about my occasional awful students, but for the most part...I really enjoy working with most of them. Unless I'm misreading what you mean by "competitive," I'm not sure why you see this as a virtue or necessity for graduate school? Very few of the programs that I looked at are actually "competitive" (read: cut-throat, combative, etc). Although many of them are quite challenging and rigorous, one is mostly competing against oneself, while maintaining collegial, even close relationships with one's cohort. The mental masturbation part is a bit strange to me as well. While I have come across the occasional immature/insecure grad student who hasn't figure out just how unattractive and counterproductive obnoxious behaviors are in grad school...most of my colleagues manage to be both brilliant and cool people, who won't speak/write/air-their-thoughts only to prove how smart they are, and who know that an intellectual conversation requires listening and responding to their interlocutors. Maybe I've just been extraordinary lucky, but I feel as though this is the norm rather than the exception at most strong, functional graduate programs. These clarification issue aside, i'd second the chorus: try an internship at a publishing house/editorial press if you're considering that career. While graduate school is a time for a certain level of self-discovery (you can certainly change sub-fields), it may not the best place to figure out whether or not academia is for you to begin with. You don't need to be certain...but it may be a red flag if you're not excited.

It depends. Every program will take a slightly different approach. I'm fairly sure that most programs (at least among the ones that I applied to) read the WS's of their finalists fairly carefully. I had several conversations about the details of my writing sample when I was admitted/interviewed...so clearly, they didn't just skim it. I have heard from numerous sources (most of whom had recently served on ad-com's) that they do skim during the first (or for some schools, the second) round. Your first page or two REALLY matters at that point. In short, it can keep you out, but in order to move through the last round, the entire sample needs to be compelling. Several of my peers have applied very successfully with a thesis excerpt. As long as it can function as a stand-alone piece (rather than a "building" chapter), I think you should be fine. My writing sample was not an thesis, but it was incredibly long (well past the limits given by every program). I ignored page limits for programs that wanted 20-25 pages and turned in the whole thing (over 30 pages), but couldn't very well turn in a sample that was more than twice as long for places that wanted 10-15 pages. For those programs, I left the conclusion and intro intact, and cut out parts of the supporting arguments in the middle. I used brackets to indicate the omissions and also to summarize the omitted arguments.

I'm curious what you mean by this. Most programs (even top tier ones) generally accepts more people than they actually want in their cohort--sometimes twice, or three times as many. Granted, there are exceptions (especially in financially lean times when programs can't afford to have too many students accept...NYU and UPenn comes to mind for this year), but this seems to be the general rule.

Holy cow, you did well, especially given the circumstances. Congrats! I didn't apply to any of these programs myself (I'm trying to get *out* of SoCal), but I spoke with 8 or 9 other people about UCLA (either friends, or students I met during other visitation weekends). All but one or two are leaning away from the program. It's hard to say for certain, especially since UCLA's visit isn't until April (and visits do tend to change minds), but there's a very good chance that UCLA will indeed go to the waitlist. That said, as I noted, I found out mostly through other visits--which means every person that I talked to had at least one other (and pretty comparable) offer, so this might not have been a representative cross-section of UCLA's admittees.

You can't really generalize this, since every program handles it differently. You might want to inquire into the details at your particular program. To give you examples of some possible (and common) configurations... Program A: 10 slots. Admits 10 people, places 15 more on a waitlist (or may or may not be ranked). Once anyone declines, they'll go to the waitlist candidates. Program B: 10 slots. Admits 25 people, waitlists 5. Will go to the list only if they hear 16 or more no's. Program C: 10 slots. Admits 15 people, waitlists 4 more. Will go to the waitlist if at least 6 people begin turning them down. Program D: 10 slots. Admits 18 people. waitlists 5 more AND DON'T TELL THEM (the infamous "internal" waitlist). (in this case, they generally don't expect to go to the waitlist at all). If they have 9 rejections, they may call someone in late April to admit them Program E: 10 slots. Admits 30 people, offers guaranteed funding to 10. No waitlist, but will cycle the funding to some of the 20 "unfunded" students if any of the funded 10 rejects. (to complicate this, some programs have funding packages that can be "recycled" to another acceptees, and funding packages that can't be.) If you're first on the waitlist at program A, your odds are very, very good. (Most programs--even the top 10--will have a 50% rejection rate...if not higher). If you're at Programs B or D, not so much. If you're accepted into program E, it's in your favor to hold out on accepting the offer even if that's your only one, in case you are offered funding. Most programs, I think, will over-admit...though that might have changed this year, given that many places don't have the extra "cushion" in case too many students accept.

If a bunch of English prospective graduate students are struggling to understand what the hell you're saying, there's a chance--a tiny one--that the fault doesn't entirely rest with them. I don't know if being denser than Lacan is actually a positive attribute. Now that you've elucidated that paragraph for us, I agree with the gist of your claims (it's what you produce, not the prestige) that counts...if not quite your attitude. So who exactly are you trying to recriminate? And why? and why in the world would you do it in this manner?

Well-put. It's also worth reiterating...as long as you approach academia with that chip on your shoulder, it becomes a self-fulling prophecy. Go where you can do your best work...or, alternatively, make the best of the resources that you've got. While a brand name does lift eyebrows and crack open doors, my experience of academics (even at uber-prestigious programs) suggests that they're willing to change their predispositions if your work (and your professional demeanor) indicates otherwise. That goes both ways. A Harvard PhD with a lackluster diss won't find a job, especially in this market. A Podunk U PhD with an outstanding diss will stand as good (or better) chance as any...though perhaps that latter has to work harder to make up for fewer resources.