strokeofmidnight

I'm not in Rhet/Comp, and am not quite familiar with the bar exams. How do they effect your chances of finding a job? Is there one state that you'd prefer? Any that you'd want to avoid? Do you have access to placement rates at other programs (besides #4?) And--perhaps this is the very question that you are asking--how important is prestige/going to a flagship program for getting a the sort of job that you want?

I'm not entirely comfortable listing programs, especially since my decision hasn't been finalized. But if waitlistees are willing to list the programs that they're waiting on, I wouldn't mind sending them a private message once I make a decision that might affect their standings. I suspect that there might be a few others in my shoes...wanting to help out (I've been waitlisted before, so I know how much it sucks) but not quite ready to declare quite so publicly.

That's a difficult situation indeed. I don't have advice, but I've struggled with a similar dilemma. While I haven't made a final decision yet, it looks like I will be turning down Ivy league offers for a UC school. While the funding at the UC is reasonable, the Ivy's are offering me almost a 10,000 higher every year, with a lower cost of living. I know the UC system (and the program that I'll most likely be accepting in particular) very well--and I'm not at all worried about the funding or budget cuts, per se. (I know the SUNY system somewhat as well--and while both are dealing with budget crisis, they seem to take very different approaches). My decision basically comes down to fit. The program that I'm leaning towards is pretty much a picture-perfect fit for what I want to do. It has comparable placement rates, an atmosphere that I enjoy, and some of the best professors in the country for my particular, obscure topic. I don't know if I can say the same for the Ivy's. I would probably be more than content at any of them, but it's hard to pass up a program that seems designed for me. I'm a transfer student, so I'll briefly note this: when I first applied, I turned down a program that was probably a better fit for a program that was paying me a whole lot more. I'm transferring out--that should say enough about how that situation worked out. Not everyone has the same approach or values, of course, but I find that as long as I have enough to live on without too much penny-pinching, it's far more important to me to be in a program that can best support my work. Granted, my decision is considerably simpler than yours: it's basically a funding versus fit issue, since the other factors are more or less equal (desireable location, good placement rates, etc).

Daphna is spot-on here. The "prestige" (for whatever it's worth) isn't worth paying tuition for--especially if you have two funded MA offers already. If Chicago is really a perfect fit for you: fantastic professors working in your field, a methodological approach that is conducive to you, it may be worth the expense...even then, I'd caution you to consider it very carefully. MA students--particularly unfunded ones, at programs with a funded PhD cohort--often do not receive the same level of attention as their PhD counterparts. (My partner paid for his MA. His thesis director barely met with him, and rare--if ever--read his work. He did well in the application process anyway, but it certainly wasn't from the one-on-one attention he [didn't] receive). Obviously, this isn't true of every program and every professor, but it's a factor to consider and investigate closely if you have the chance to visit. The name on your diploma will never get you in. It's what you learn while earning it that counts (seriously!). It's also worth noting, I think that "prestige" works differently for MA than for BA degrees. (And even then, the name on your BA diploma won't determine your fate). Most of the MA's-holders that I know of currently in top PhD programs came from "less prestigious" programs...though prestige is tricky, since it varies by subfield, and is very hard to evaluate for programs that only have terminal MA's (and therefore are not in the rankings to begin with). What is a "quality" MA program is far less clear-cut, and far more geared towards particular fields/methodologies...basically, the usual associations that we have towards the school's name is less reliable. Rather focus on prestige, look at the training instead. Will this program give you the training, resources, attention, etc...that you need to be competitive on the PhD market? (you might also want to inquire into their PhD "placement" rates). Is it a good fit for your work?

I'm curious what you would consider to be "decent-to-very-good tenure track/postdoc placement?" (admittedly, these sorts of things are highly subjective, since people have different goals). Between my partner's 3 rounds and my own, I think we've fairly thoroughly researched the bulk (maybe 25-30?) of the top 50 schools. Between the two of us, we were admitted into roughly 15 of those schools (ranging from several top 5 schools to some in the 40's), and had access to the fine details of their recent placements. While there are programs on the latter part of that list with very strong placement rates, I find that on the whole "good placement" tends to drop off sharply--absymally--after the top 20 or 25 (though there are programs within that range that don't place well). At some of the "top 50" programs, if one goes through the fine print carefully, it looks as though only one or two students find tenure-track jobs a year. Granted, these last few years have been especially difficult for everyone across the board, but I still think that there are sharp disparities in placement rates among the top 50. (Though again, I would need to qualify that generalization by pointing out that placement is as much the product of the student's motivations and desires as the program's preparation). In any case, this is just to say: be careful...but considering how carefully you've approached this reapplication process, I don't think you need this caevat

Are you looking at PhD programs? Were you invited to the NYU interview? I'm fairly sure that they emailed all of their finalists for the interview (which was 2 weeks ago), and will be drawing only from that pool. (It's pretty deep: about 30 people for 9-10 spots, so I would be surprised if NYU went through the entire interview pool). I don't know Columbia, since I never applied there...but I think they've contacted their accepted students already. It is possible that they may hold back a few students on an official waitlist.

This is for English programs? I would go to the DGS rather than the POI, since that person may or may not have anything to do with admissions this year.

Honestly, of all the schools, this information would be LEAST useful a program as hip-and-cool as SUNY Buffalo. I was a former PhD admit. The GPA that I've overheard from fellow admits ranged from the 2-something to a perfect 4.0, and the GRE's are in the same wild range. Somewhere in the website, I think Buffalo more-or-less tell you that they don't give a damn. I can't possibly overemphasize how little they care about these stats. If I seem insistent on this, it's because that after 3 rounds of application, it's painfully, painfully obvious to me that not only is this info rarely helpful, but actually steer you in the wrong direction should you (or anyone going off of this info) decide to reapply in the future. I know what it's like to compare yourself against others, trying endlessly to figure out how you stack up and what your chances might be. It's...I don't know how to put it more plainly...it's completely detrimental, not only to yourself, but also to the sense of collegiality that (I, at least) look for in any grad program. Don't go there. It won't help, and it definitely can hurt. It's almost possible to guess how many offers have gone out purely by the numbers on grad cafe. (The dates, especially when compared historically, can be slightly more illuminating, though even those are subject to variations from year to year). Most accepted students won't post on grad cafe. And almost all programs will make offers than they have spots--sometimes 2-3 times as many offers versus spots, though the tight budgets this year might change that. I'm not 100% sure that Buffalo is done notifying its accepted students, but based on what I know of their cycles, unless one has been waitlisted, it's rather unlikely that more PhD acceptances will go out. Buffalo will probably notify their MA acceptees soon--many of whom are taken from the PhD applicant pool. Unless they're doing things *completely* differently this year (which I somewhat doubt--also, their visitation weekend is coming up soon), the current review is probably for the MA slots. Rutgers and Cornell are both done notifying, I believe. They both have waitlists, but I think all waitlisted students have also already been notified. it's been a very tough year all around. The speculation in your first paragraph completely matches my not-inconsiderable experience with Buffalo's process. There's always a chance things could change any given year, but this has definitely been their timeline/procedure in past years. I didn't prod too much into Buffalo's funding situation (for the PhD, at least. The MA is completely unfunded). My sense (which could be completely off) is that international students are often accepted without funding for the PhD. (Personally, I think that's shockingly unethical, but that's another story altogether). I don't know of American PhD students who were not funded there...but that could just be because I haven't run across any. Did they make you an unfunded offer? I would note, however, that unless you're guaranteed some teaching later on, you might not want to take it. Even if you're comfortable paying for an PhD, the lack of teaching would catch up to you on the job market.

I can't help you on deciphering that letter...but before you jump to conclusions, definitely call and ask. Many programs with both terminal MA and PhD students will *not* prioritize their own MA students for the PhD...and at times, it's even harder to get into the PhD than external candidates. At other programs, the MA can be a natural "foot in the door" into the PhD program...but in any case, this isn't something that you should take for granted. Call and ask: how many MA students matriculate each year? How many graduate within 2 years? within 1 year? How many MA students are accepted into the PhD cohort? Can you speak with those individuals directly?

This seems to be a preannual worry every March/April. I think whether or not it's worth it for you to pay tuition really depends on what sort of scholar you are (which is hard to evaluate, especially at this stage), what were the weaknesses in your applications...and how well suited you are for the MA program. I know of MANY students who were turned down from every PhD program, paid their way through an MA, and was wildly successful when they reapplied. For for every student who got to choose between Harvard and Berkeley (or insert your choice of schools) on their second (or third) round...there are also students who never finished the MA program, or was just as unsuccessful in future rounds. It's a gamble either way. Here's some informed speculation to consider: Maybe go for it if... -the MA program has strong faculty in your particular area of study. (several of Buffalo's Poetics MA students, for example, end up doing VERY well when they reapply. Regardless of where Buffalo is ranked, it's poetics program is among the best in the country--and other programs take this into account...not to mention, it shows up in the quality of SoP/WS) -along the same times, the program has really good faculty in your field. -You've been struggling to find a focus, and have a hard time narrowing this down on your own. -You've been out of undergrad for a while. You feel somewhat out of touch, and think your scholarship might benefit from immersion in a graduate program -you can see it benefiting your goals in other ways, even if you don't get into a PhD program. (for example, community college teaching is often available to those who hold MA's, though I don't know how the market for that looks at the moment) Maybe turn it down if... -you're senior applying for the first time. (SO many seniors that I know of fare much better in later rounds, even without an MA degree/other credentials under their belt) -The feedback on your application (from programs, profs, or your own evaluation) suggests that it's the non-writing elements that are holding you back (say, lack of language skills for comp lit, God-awful GRE verbal scores [a 650 doesn't count!]). If this is something that you can amend on your own, don't pay for the MA. (the one exception, which probably is self-explanatory, is your undergrad GPA). Note of caution: don't overestimate the importance of the non-writing elements. While it's difficult to say exactly what schools care about which elements (unless anyone has insider info), the WS and SoP will virtually always outweigh everything else put together. -you have an opportunity to take classes (particularly at the graduate level) in your field OUTSIDE of going through an MA (perhaps start by asking/looking at the colleges around you and/or your alma mater) It's really a tough, tough decision. For very different reasons, both my partner and I have reapplied to PhD programs. He paid for an MA and did well. I didn't...and still did well. In this case, it was pretty clear that it was what he learned from his MA (and the much stronger WS and SoP that went with it) which got him into his dream program. In my case, I continued to work closely with my undergrad professors (even from several hundred miles away, years after I graduated)...and I've always been good at researching on my own. I was also able to take graduate-level classes without paying an MA tuition, and was lucky enough that the classes were in my field. It can work out nicely both ways...or it can be really disappointing, both ways.

This, this, this. So true. I've seen it happen again and again. The numbers mean very little, past a certain (and fairly flexible) point. It's the writing that counts...in any case, congrats!

I was actually VERY careful to avoid precisely this assumption. I think it's fairly safe to say that, as a very general rule, higher-ranked programs (especially if we take field strengths) into account will have better placement, particularly in the R1/SLAC positions that some scholars find to be more desirable. I NEVER suggested (or even assumed) that "only those who attend top schools have a solid chance of finding employment, and that everyone else, is, well, kind of screwed"...I even gave examples of situations where this was precisely not the case. I was trying to point out--as I think you are as well--that whether or not one should "reach for the top" really depends on what one wants out of one's career. Far from assuming that very narrow causation which I think I'm being accused of, I went to great lengths to point out that whatever correlation exists between employment and prestige is fuzzy, and at least somewhat in your hands as a graduate student. I do think that (assuming that one puts in the same amount of effort, work, foresight, etc) that a degree from Stanford-Berkeley-Ivy's may open doors to a wider range of jobs--particularly for the first job (all bets are off, I think, past that point). But this is again a generalize that doesn't take into account the particularities of fit, the draw of certain advisers, resources, etc. I would disagree, actually, that Berkeley and Harvard (or their "elite" counterpart) students are unable to land jobs at less-than-prestigious programs (though it's probably safe to say that the majority of students from these "top-tier" schools do aim for R1/SLAC jobs, and tend to orient their search accordingly). I know of several who have happily done just that--and several, in fact, who prefer a more student-oriented environment and turned down R1 jobs. I also wouldn't lump Berkeley and Harvard in the same category. Berkeley is, for all it's prestige, a public university. Most students in this program will teach for at least 2 or 3 years (3-4 seems to be the average) before landing their first job (same goes for its "elite public" counterparts such as Rutgers, UCLA, Michigan, and UVA). My sense is that while many of the elite private schools require less teaching--though with the exception of a few--2 years min. still seems to be the norm. I'm also somewhat baffled by what I viewed (not unfairly, I hope) to be a rather negative tone toward Berkeley, Harvard, & co. I'm pointing to this section in particular: "Because there are so many schools out there--and no, not just in the hinterlands or the deep south--who don't want to hire Harvard or Berkeley. Who want to hire someone who will stick around and not run off when an R1 position opens up. Who won't sacrifice teaching to pursue research. Who will "fit in" to a collegiate culture that privileges students over pursuing some obscure research topic. Harvard and Berkeley PhDs are going to fit in at certain teaching-oriented colleges as well as a Ball State PhD would fit in at Northwestern." What it seems to suggest, if I'm reading this correctly, is that Berkeley, Harvard, & co grads won't fit into a collegiate culture that privileges students, and can't balance research and teaching. Not to mention, the quiet dismissal of academic work as "pursuing some obscure research topic" may be, on the one hand, somewhat true...but on the other hand...profoundly pessimistic coming from a fellow scholar. I can't speak for Harvard directly--I don't know of many graduate students there. But the students that I've encountered at Berkeley, Brown, Michigan, (etc) tend to take their roles as a teacher seriously. Certainly, they seems themselves as researchers who strive to contribute to their field, but they don't seem to think that one MUST choose between teaching and research. It's always a juggling act (and not an easy one), but the best scholars are able to strike a workable balance. Also, I do want to point out that Berkeley, Harvard, & co students don't tend to rest on their laurels. (It's probably safe to say that most of them were overambitious type A personalities who worked their tails off to get there in the first place!). Most of these students do work on publications--though granted, the emphasis is heavily on quality over quantity. Many (likely most) of them do pursue "extra" work--on journals, in corroboration with other scholars, working groups, etc. Many of the students that I know of in "light" teaching programs (2 years or less) will search out extra teaching over the summer, or at other programs. There's not exactly--as your last sentence suggests--pampered pets who can only work in R1's--though most of them, I'd wager, have an advantage at landing that particular job (though like any advantage, it can be compensated for).

Including myself, I know of 4 students who will likely be turning down NYU's offer. (I'm waiting for a few other pieces to fall into place, but should be "moving" on this decision within a week...and will be encouraging my fellow acceptees to do the same if they're sure that they will not attend). It's a pretty awesome program and extremely strong in my field, but slightly less of an ideal fit for me. For those of you on the waitlist...good luck! I don't know how many were waitlisted. I can't imagine more than the 30 that were invited to the interview, and possibly less than that. I don't know if this is true for NYU, but at other programs, it's often to your advantage to let a program know that they're your top choice (if that is true, of course) if you're sitting on the waitlist.

When you're accepted, the programs tend to be very forthcoming with this information. Every school that accepted me (regardless of where they're ranked) has offered up a list of recent placements (including type: TT, fellowship, visiting, etc, dates, and sometimes the field/diss adviser/diss title). I suspect that programs with stronger placements tend to advertise it...but actually, some of the ones that didn't list the info placed quite well. I haven't actually tried, but my gut instinct says that this isn't the sort of thing that you should be asking about before you have an offer in hand (but once you do, ask away!), so if it's not posed, you might be applying somewhat blind in that regard.

The difficulty is that the stats aren't very revealing of one's chances. It's certainly true that the most very successful applicants tend to have higher stats, but I think it would be a mistake to argue for causation here. I know of students with perfect GRE's, GPA's, and name-brand dipolmmas who got in nowhere, and students with relatively lower or middling numbers who did very well at the tip-top program. It is wise to apply widely (as long as you're pretty sure that you'd want to attend--and obtain your PhD from--every program that you apply) to a range of programs that fit your work, but I don't think that the stats are reliable indications of...anything, really. Also, I wouldn't apply to a "safety" school unless I'd be happy going there (and more importantly, as Pamphilia noted, getting my PhD from there). It depends what you want to do with your degree. If you *just* want the chance to study literature for 5-7 years, with the understanding that your education may or may not prepare you to be competitive on the job market, than perhaps the "low tier" schools are worth it. Certainly, there are some very good scholars (working in awesome places!) who came out of these less competitive (and possibly less rigorous) programs...but I sense that they are the exceptions rather than the rule. If you have your heart set on an R1 or elite SLAC job, then perhaps you'd want to aim for the programs with much stronger placement (which tends to be the higher-ranking ones, though this isn't a direct correlation). Obviously, there are no guarantees either way--a *good* tenure-track placement is 60-70%...which is still a gamble (though you have 5-7 years to try to load the dice). Personally, I would never recommend accepting an offer from a place that isn't a good fit for you. It's simply hard to do good work without the faculty, archival, student, etc resources...and I think I can safely say that regardless of where you're graduating out of, it's impossible to find a job if you're not doing good work. And frankly...it would be hard for me (personally) to be happy at a place that isn't a good fit for me. Honestly, top tier schools are definitely *not* good fits for everyone. If one thinks so, I think one might want to re-examine one's project carefully...as well as the scholarship that is coming out of those programs. Ever program has its own subset of methodologies, its strength and weakness. I have a relatively wide-ranging, heavily interdisciplinary project...and for complicated reasons, applied only to very strong programs. There are 3 programs that are virtually perfect fits, 5 or 6 more that are "good" fits...and one or two that seem promising but nebulous. There's absolutely no way that the entire top 10, top 20, top 50...or whatever arbitrary line one wants to draw to denote the "top programs"....would have been suitable for my research.

I still hope that you will hear good news this year. If you don't mind a nosy question, do you have geographic limitations? I noticed that--save UCSC--most of the programs are fairly close to one another. If not (or if you'd consider breaking them for next year), it may not hurt to apply more widely. The UC programs, as I'm sure you know, are largely retrenching this year in order to maintain funding levels. And unfortunately, it seems that the interdisciplinary programs (rather than straight up English) tend to be hit the hardest--I wouldn't be surprised if many of your programs took far fewer applicants than in past years...though I suspect that this news isn't very comforting. Also, if you're in the area, do you know if you can sit in on grad classes (even as an auditor?) at one of these programs? It seems to happen not infrequently in some of these programs--particularly if you have alumni connections, and might help you get your foot in the door during a tough season.

I think the advice to aim high if one is going to apply as an undergrad is spot-on--particularly if going to a top-program is important. (Many people apply with geographic limitations in mind, which might compromise the application of this advice). Exactly as you noted, the key seem to be avoiding that sense of entrapment. While that last-choice school might actually prove to be a great fit and a wonderful place for your research, it's hard to go to grad school enthusiastically if you felt that you were stuck there--and grad school is hard enough without that additional frustration to kick things off. Still, I do have to challenge the bit about resources and academic atmosphere. It was precisely the time *away* from academics...and the chance to return to it with a different perspective that really helped. While some undergrads--and you're a prime example--do attain the intellectual and personal maturity to put together a very impressive application, far more (who would otherwise be successful given some time) do not. (But then again, if they followed your advice to aim high that first round, while it might be a longer and more expensive process, I think they might be less likely to find themselves "settling" prematurely). As someone who moved 3,000 miles away from my alma mater during my first round of applications, I had a relatively easy time with revising/advising. Between the internet, borrowing the online library resources of friends, and the public library, I was able to gather all the library resources that I needed--though admittedly with a bit more trouble than if I was still in undergrad. My professors were very helpful with advice and revision...if anything, they made *more* time and effort for me, because I was no longer a student. It certainly helped that I knew I was going to grad school while still an undergrad and kept in touch with my professors. Had I sent them an email out of the blue 8 years later asking for LoR's, I suspect that I might have been met with a less warm reception. And (somewhat) in hindsight, I've never met anyone who regretted taking time off. (Most of my colleagues took between 1 and 10 years off...we probably average 3 years). It seems that many who didn't felt that they could have benefited from waiting a year or two. Many of the current grad students that I know of who went "straight," even those who ended up at very good programs, felt overwhelmed and burnt out after their first year or two. Every single of the half-a-dozen students that I know of (at various top programs) who dropped out went straight from undergrad. They were certainly more than bright enough... but the adjustment process can be exhausting on so many levels. Obviously, this isn't to say that those who went straight can't be successful (some of the absolutely brightest and most well-adjusted students that I know of took this route), but I do think that they tend to be especially vulnerable. I wouldn't worry too much in your case. I suspect that your experience throughout undergrad (both within and outside of the "usual" college environment) will serve you well in grad school. But I always hesitate to tell my own undergrads to apply straight unless they have a comparable level of non-academic experience and maturity. And most--even my best and brightest--frankly, don't. Btw, fingers crossed for you on NYU. For what it's worth, I think they made only as many offers as they had spots, and most of the NYU acceptees that I've run across on other visits have hinted that they'll probably turn down the offer, so I think the program will need to reach quite deeply into their waitlist.

*grins* For my coffee-house job, the only application was to submit a short essay discussing why I wanted that job. I "cited" Avenue Q's "what do I do with a major in English..." and that was what did the trick. Either that, or my mad dish-washing skills....

Oops. I haven't changed my status in over a month. I have several offers that I'm quite happy with...and am largely relieved to be DONE with this entire process. This sounds like a really good plan, especially since the program seems to be a good fit for you! I'm curious, though...do the MA/PhD students reapply (elsewhere) after completing the MA portion of their program? I ask because I was also accepted into an MA/PhD program two years ago, and had considered that possibility. When I (delicately) inquired into this, I was rather abruptly told that students *don't* use that opportunity to "fish around" (and in any case, it may not be easy to do so without jeopardizing one's relationship with the current program--since you'll need LoR writers). Of course, there's no guaranteed that this applies to all programs with a similar, or even that the person I spoke to knew exactly how things worked in her own program (I didn't dare ask more students after that incident), but it may be worth considering if you're hoping to transfer out. And briefly...rankings are quite mythic, not to mention outdated and not sufficiently tailored to one's particular field/interests/etc. I definitely wouldn't reapply just to scamper up the (imagined) totem pole. While there are programs that are better regarded than others (particularly for certain fields), those don't necessary correspond with the rankings. Good luck either way!

Woolfie, I can definitely understand your frustration, but applications are unpredictable beasts. I know of a candidate who applied up and down the rankings...was turned down from several programs outside the top 50...and whose only offer came from...<i>Berkeley</i>. Obviously, this is an extreme case, but it seems quite common for applicants to be turned down by lower-ranked programs, only to be accepted into a program several dozen places higher on the totem pole. For example, I know of no less than a dozen students (over 3 years of applications) who were accepted into at least two (and sometimes all) of the following: Berkeley, Stanford, "the Ivy's," "top ten's"...and were rejected from the University of Washington. UW, it seems, doesn't want to be anyone's safety (though this is pretty speculatory--I've never applied there). This is really where "fit" comes in. Apply to every program that is a good fit for your work (and if you have a few dozen programs, chances are...you're not thinking through the nuances of your work sufficiently to be a compelling applicant), regardless of where they're ranked. If you're cutting back on programs--I do sympathize with the financial necessary--do so based on fit, rather fear that you might not get into your top choices. You can probably save yourself some money by applying wisely: do your research very thoroughly (read the book prefaces, reviews, recent articles of every professor vaguely in your field/share your methodology at very school that interests you). As for whether or not you know that your writing sample is good enough: if you're lucky enough to have a very well informed adviser/former professor, definitely solicit their honest, critical feedback. (This round, one of my advisers edits a major journal in my field. I was told that my writing sample is at/close to the publication standard for peer journals...though for what it's worth, I didn't think that my WS was ready to be submitted for publication. Because he regularly deals with articles in my field, his judgment is probably fairly accurate--and in any case, I did very well this season). That said, I certainly wasn't this lucky in past rounds, and had to basically strike it out on my own. While I was far less confident in those previous rounds, I found that carefully reading, re-reading, and learning to "internalize" that most successful aspects of the articles/books/arguments that I admire was helpful to improving and learning to critique my own work. I also leaned heavily on my peers (many of whom I met on these--and similar--forums), who provided critique and insight into their own programs. And of course, your old professors might be a good resource (even if it's been years since you last worked with them).

Good luck, folks! Here's to more (and funded) offers to give Fordham some competition. For what it's worth, I think it's *incredibly* difficult to apply successfully as an undergrad, especially to PhD programs. I waited two years before applying my first round, and did quite well. (I didn't spend the time in between doing anything academic-y...though the summer before apps were due, I did start studying for the GRE's/Lit exam and rewriting my writing sample, SoP, researching schools, etc). There's something about simply giving oneself a few years to mature--and for your undergrad training to "percolate" that seems quite effective. Looking over my papers from senior year (which I would have submitted had I applied back then), it was pretty obvious that no self-respecting PhD program would have taken me at "that level"...and for what it's worth, I was a straight-A student from a decent undergrad. So I suppose what I'm suggesting is...while I can definitely understand the desire to pay for one's MA (and in some cases, this would indeed be a wise move), it may be to your benefit to simply take some time off, find a "real" job (in my case, I tutored, waited tables, and worked in a coffeehouse...nothing glamorous or particularly attractive on my CV/resume)...and try again. This isn't to say, of course, that no one gets into strong PhD programs applying as an undergrad. It happens all the time. But I suspect that far more promising applicants benefited from taking time off than applying "straight." Certainly, most (90, 95%) of the students at the top programs that I know of (though this varies depending on the culture/preferences of different programs) took at least 1 year off.

Congrats, Pamphilia! Isn't it awesome when things work out that way?

I want to visit, but I'm not sure that I can get take the time off...I'm still waiting. I do know the program reasonably well and may be able to put you in touch with two other Brown acceptees (I think they're both be at the visitation week[end]) and one or two current grads. I'm an 18th centuryist, so I'll be in Area 2, according to Brown's divisions. I take it that you're leaning towards Area 1? Are there specific faculty that you'd like to work with?

I applied as an 18th centuryist and did fairly well. However, as others have already mentioned, just because this is a small field doesn't mean that it's easy to get into. In some programs, I was the only person in my field accepted--and as a general rule, most students who do go for this tend to be better informed and prepared than the average applicant in the broader pool. The comparison to medievalists is apt: there are certain methodologies, topics, etc that seem to be especially conducive to this field...which requires prior training/experience. (My own approach is heavily interdisciplinary, and I draw from my previous training in an entirely different discipline. It would have been very difficult for me to be successful without that prior background). I don't "do" colonialism at all, so my knowledge is heavily limited. Have you considered programs that are strong in transaltantic? If so, you may want to look at Brown. NYU, Stanford, and Berkeley are traditionally the best programs for 18th century studies in general...though I'm not sure that the approaches at those programs are especially conducive to yours. Berkeley is very interested in philosophy and the novel. NYU's eighteenth centuryists are all over the place (and on both sides of the atlantic), but quite a few are working on questions of medium, history of the book, etc. I have no idea what Stanford is up to nowadays. Rutgers is also QUITE strong at the18th century, but I'm not sure about colonialism. If you're interested in Canadian schools, UofToronto is well worth considering. UCLA might also be a good bet: they're a good program for the 18th century in general, and I've heard good things about their work on poco (not sure if that connects with what you're doing). Columbia is also on my radar for both poco and the 18th century, but I wouldn't know who to refer you to. WUSTL's a very good program for 18th and 19th century novels, as well as poco...but again, colonialism may be a different story.

This is a really helpful and informative post...and completely true of my experience as well. It's actually extremely hard to do well applying straight from undergrad, during your senior year (major props to those of you who have pulled it off!). So much of one's (mine, at least) maturation came during that last year and in the year afterwards. Like Keila, I also did well as an undergrad, but there was something about taking time off--not just from applications, but hardcore literary studies in general--that paradoxically allowed me to become a far better literary scholar when I returned to it a year later (while prepping for applications). I've been reading over my old papers (always a scary venture), and the change is somewhat incredible--all the more so because I wasn't studying/researching at all in the meantime. It just took time--and real world experience--for those 4 years of education to simmer and finally come together. (excuse the dangling metaphors).