strokeofmidnight

Brown makes decisions on the MA's in march, typically. Always after the PhD students. The number of offers are only for the PhD--since it's tied to stipends/funding. MA matriculation was up last year, though i don't know if that meant that they made more offers, or simply more students accepted.

My results this year doesn't apply, but I was fairly successful applying without a thesis, straight out of college (though i did take a year off)....far moreso than the students my year who did write a senior thesis. Long story sort, i didn't "qualify" for the thesis-writing class...but ended up writing several research and theory intensive, writing-sample-length papers anyway--one of which I late revised into the writing sample for my first round. I don't think it's the thesis, per se, that counts...but the experience and product of that sort of intense scholarship (preferably with faculty guidance). If you can obtain it by other means, I really don't think that not having the letters on your CV will count. In short...even if you've already graduated, it's not too late and I don't think that not having written on will hurt you--as long as your writing sample can demonstrate a comparable (or higher!) level of thinking/research/writing. Seriously...I can just about promise you that not a single thing on that list would have made a difference. I had no awards, no honors, no publications, no conferences, no accolades, no TA experience, no special projects, no societies, no fellowships...etc, etc on my CV when I first applied. I got into half of my list (and applied almost exclusively to top-20 programs). The ONLY thing that I had going for me was a good writing sample and a not-so-awful SoP. That was enough to land top-ten programs. While it is too late to toss 75 down the drain...err, to PBK, or to push for essay awards (how obnoxious!), or to write an honors thesis...the things that are actually going to make a difference are still completely under your control. Do you know just how little time ad-coms spend on the CV? I was accepted into a program that lost my transcripts and LoR. The only place that also lists my schools/grade level is my CV. I'm pretty sure that they didn't look at it at all...when they called me for the acceptance, they were mistakened about the school that I was from. (It's not quite as absurd as it sounds--my situation is understandably confusing, especially without transcripts. But had they even glanced at my CV, they would have figured this out). This is a very strong program that turns away their share of valedictorians. Believe me, they were not at all concerned about the honors that I have or haven't garnished. I don't think most schools will be concerned either.

Congrats, guys, for getting in! A few quick things to note... Errr...you simply don't reapply until the year after. You go through the entire program, graduate, then begin reapplying/revising/asking for recs during the summer of 2011--when you're done with the MA. It's simply insane to reapply while going through your first year of graduate school. I had assumed that this was the normative time frame (certainly, this was the case for everyone that I know of who did an MA). Besides, it takes a while--in my case, a full year--before the graduate training starts to "kick in" and really strengthen one's scholarship. You'll likely be a much more competitive--and successful--applicant when you apply with the MA in hand, rather than not-quite-halfway through a one-year program. Are you discussing MA or PhD options at the other 4 programs? If the MA ignore this. However, if you're waiting on PhD programs...simply put, the "THE UC'S ARE DYING" panic is WAY, WAY overblown. If your offer guarantees X years of funding, you will get X years of funding, budget crisis be damned. It is true that for some campuses, it's harder to get funding beyond the guaranteed years...but there's absolutely no reason to worry that the school somehow won't honor its contract. For what it's worth, I'm currently in a UC program...and my top choice is another UC, which I will likely pick over at least 2 Ivy's. The UC budget crisis certainly received the most publicity (my parents still call me every month to make sure that I got my check--totally unnecessary), but I don't think that image is very accurate. Our undergrads were screwed over. The grad students are relatively sheltered from the budget pitfalls. Faculty...is a different matter, but that's something for you to investigate if/when you visit the campus. Of course, this isn't to say that you shouldn't pick Dartmouth. There are advantages to a funded MA, even if that means going through application hell again...and it's entirely understandable if you go down this route. Just don't choose against the UC's simply because of funding--wait until the packages come in

Brown is calling now. Good luck! They're making ~20 offers, which is up from their usual 18. However, they also received an insane increase in the number of applications (up by 60% this year?!!!)...which probably explains why they're notifying so late. Visitation weekend is March 11-12th. Fingers crossed for those of you who are waiting....

My numbers, unfortunately, won't reveal anything. I've been rejected twice before (yep, that was my post) with nearly identical "stats"--higher ones, in fact, than what I applied with this year. It's the writing sample, SoP, and letters that really make the difference. I think Cornell is aiming for a cohort of 12? (strange, I recall 15 from past years...I'm guessing that they're retrenching?). They'll definitely make more than 12 offers. Typically, most programs (even at the top) will make at twice as many offers as they have spots, since most of their acceptees will have offers from peer universities. In past years, Cornell made all of their offers on the same day (waitlistees aside). I'm not sure what was up with the earlier 2 notices. I'm guessing (complete speculation here) that someone was aiming for comp lit, but didn't quite finish? Cornell offers the same package to everyone (or so the acceptance letter claim), so I can't imagine that they contacted people for a "special fellowship" or whatnot in advance, as some programs do. In any case, good luck with the rest of your list.

Are you applying as an 18th centuryist? If you wouldn't mind mentioning a bit more about your specific interests, I might be able to recommend programs/people. (I'm also an 18th centuryist, though I focus on the later half and spill into the 19th century/romanticism). Briefly, NYU and Michigan should definitely be on your list, especially if historicism is your cup of tea. My sense is that they're both very good at that entire century. I have very specific research interests, and basically looked for the professors who are asking similar questions, or are interested in a similar configuration of topics. Most of them are in my field...but quite a few are actually not. (My topic pushes field boundaries, though I restrained myself to the 18th century for the sake of presenting a coherent SoP). I did look at classes and professor's recent publications...but also their book reviews, scanned through the top journals for my field(s), asked my professors (in the field) for recommendations. I did not contact any professors and still had a pretty successful season. I'm not very comfortable writing those emails/making calls, and would prefer to let my application do the talking. I think that unless you have a specific (organic is a good word for it) reason for making contact...don't. An awkward or unfruitful email might actually leave a negative impression. There are tons of exceptions to this rule, of course (if you adviser tells you to write emails, and recommends that you use his/her name, for example)...but I don't think one should feel compelled to do so.

Insider, but not definitive. Brown should be notifying soon. They already have their list of acceptees...I'm speculating that they're waiting for the Grad School to approve it. They'll be making slightly more offers this year than in previous years.

Thank you! This is good to know The websites will virtually never broadcast that kind of information. I've heard it from 3 different sources, one of them being gradcafe. I'm not sure if it's 5 spots or 5 offers (or perhaps, both), but this strikes me as fairly accurate.

I was wondering if anyone have heard news from UPenn's English department? There's nothing posted from this year. However, if UPenn is indeed making 5 offers (can anyone verify this?), then it seems entirely plausible that none of the 5 might post their acceptance...and UPenn would go under the radar completely until the rest of us receive the rejection letter. I think I gave up on UPenn long ago, but it would be nice to have closure on this season. Good luck to those of you who are still waiting!

Which UC's do you have in mind? It does make a difference. Berkeley English (despite the incredible media coverage) is weathering the budget issue very well. Granted, its funding has never been ideal. In the past, even in plentiful years, Berkeley gave out both fellowship and underfunded offers. Prior to the budget cuts, I think Berkeley was striving towards offering a comprehensive funding package (3 years of fellowships, TAships filling out the remaining 6 years) for all its acceptees (this is the "fellowship" package offered to some), but the recent crisis have forced them to delay implementing this. Still, even in this crisis, Berkeley has held to past funding levels, rather than dropped the level of support. Travel, conference, language funding are all still available, and at considerably more generous levels than at other UC's. As far as I know, there's no "great flight" out of Berkeley. One or two professors might be leaving, but that seems to be the case even in normal years (Berkeley has a huge faculty--70ish?). For complicated reasons that I won't go into, there are ALWAYS rumors that Berkeley faculty is leaving--they do "fish" around the job market perhaps more than most, but rarely seem to actually accept offers to go elsewhere. Although it's too soon to say for certain, i suspect that Berkeley will always be a "destination" for top faculty, budget crisis be damned. I've heard similar news about UCLA. I think in general, their offers to students are more stable than Berkeley's (UCLA offers a full 5 years of funding to every student, whereas Berkeley doesn't guaranteed [but generally delivers] the first 2 years for some students). I don't know about faculty movement, but I would expect a similar level of stability: it's a strong program (like Berkeley) that is facing relatively gentler budget cuts than the rest of the UC's. The UC funding crisis is quite real, but they're largely sparing the two "crown jewels" (I'm repeating what I perceive to be the rhetoric and rationale from the top...whether or nor they're actually "crown jewels" will obviously depend on the particular candidate's needs and preferences). As for the rest of the UC's...it'll vary from campus to campus. It looks as though most campuses are retrenching to maintain something close to current funding levels for their admitted students--they're just admitting/enrolling fewer students, and some programs are not taking students at all (Santa Cruz's History of Consciousness, Irvine's Culture and Theory). Some campuses are losing faculty--and there is a hiring freeze in place (though the details vary from program to program). I don't know which campuses, or at what rates. This is something that you might want to ask the grad students once you're admitted to the particular program. Cost of field research....what do you mean by this? There isn't really a "field research" stage for our field. Archival research, perhaps, but that's kinda built into dissertation fellowships, which again varies from program to program.

This. Pamphilia and hadunc are spot-on in their responses. English academia is a profession. While obviously every scholar has a slightly different approach, I think it's fair to say that the profession itself demands that we think and about literature in a critical (and often self-critical), responsible manner. I'm not quite sure what exactly you (subzoo) have in mind when you disparage literary scholarship. Certain, some scholarship is better than others, and some perhaps should never have been published. But I think the general ethos of our field--if we take it seriously--is to apply disciplined, nuanced criticism that might do justice to the literature that we love (or at least, appreciate). We might not always succeed, but for most of us, that seems to be the guiding principle. It's also worth noting: loving literature and being a serious academic are not incompatible experiences. If anything, I'd argue that one can't be a good English academic without a serious love of and commitment to literary studies...but that passion in itself isn't sufficient. Aside from (and to me, far above) the obvious professionalization aspects of conferences, I go in order to engage with other scholars who are interested in similar books/topics/questions. Publications, rather than merely a line in the CV, is a chance to subject my scholarship to (ideally) a rigorous process by which I might gain feedback on what works, and what needs to be improved. Those aren't just hoops to jump over. (the GRE is, but that's a different story). Or perhaps, those *shouldn't* be viewed as mere professionalization hoops to someone who wants to enter the academy. Frankly, if this is how you see English academia, than perhaps it isn't the best place for you. This isn't to say that you can't read, think, and love literature. Obviously, one doesn't need a PhD to do so! But if you find the essential components of our profession to be so onerous, perhaps the Academy itself isn't the best place to pursue your love of literature. Graduate school can be long, painful, and impoverished 5-7 years unless you really enjoy the work of our field.

I always hesitate to say too much, because my situation is really unusual (I applied three times, but for complicated personal reasons, have turned down strong, funded, PhD offers--Ivy's and top ten's). There's a lot about my situation that won't apply to anyone, which I usually leave out of the discussion. My professors were surprised because I was essentially transferring out of a PhD program during my second round. It was early on (too early--and they're probably right) to make an informed decision about leaving, particularly since the program I was already attending is considered one of the best in my field. I really don't think that my professors (or any reasonable prof) would refuse to rewrite or resubmit their LoR's for another round for a candidate who wasn't successful the first time around. Frankly, many professors expect it. They know that even their best students might require more than one attempt.

It depends on your score and the schools that you are aiming for. And what sort of a test-taker you are. I spent 2 months re-studying for the GRE's. I did well enough on my re-take, but man, the time, money, and stress wasn't worth it. (my top choice, as it turns out, couldn't care less about any of my scores. Go figure). Unless you have your heart set on the ivy's (in which case, you might want to re-examine the reasons for this), you might not want to re-take if your score is above 600 or 650. It's hard to give definitive answers, since programs tend to use (and weigh) the scores differently. The cut-offs varies, but as a very general rule (with lots of exceptions), the higher-ranked the school, the more likely it is that they'll use a higher "cutting" score. Still, there are top schools (some of which, confusingly enough, actually LIST average scores) which do not use the GRE (and some, not the GPA either) as part of the admissions decision. In short, unless you have inside information on the applications that you're applying to, it's something of a gamble. If you're limited on time, as a general rule, prioritize the SoP and writing sample. Round 2, I just asked LoR writers from round 1. They were very gracious about it, even though some of them were perplexed at my decision to reapply. They updated their letters. Round 3, I asked for new LoR writers. I had taken graduate classes in the meantime, and asked professors in my field. I wrote an entirely new writing sample (in a completely different field), and a new SoP to match. Since I was already in graduate school, I was working with a very different set of methodology/approach/framework, and I think it helped to strength my application. As horribly old-fashioned as it may sound, I only did well in applications when I finally stopped worrying about "how to improve my academic attractiveness" and started asking myself how I can simply improve my scholarship. My CV is, if anything, less impressive this round than before. I fared considerably better. I don't think that those two things are mutually exclusive (of course not!), but I do think that shifting the focus--at least in some cases--can be very helpful. I think conferences can be valuable (though it's hit or miss) for making connections, particularly if your paper was well-received. And the feedback from the publication process (particularly at strong journals) can be extremely valuable for revising your writing sample. However, I don't think it's at all necessary to have a publication (not that you suggested this)...and conferences in themselves are probably not dealmakers (or dealbreakers). Between rounds 1 and 2, I did pursue the conference/publication route (on top of retaking the GRE). It didn't help, and I fared considerably worse. Between rounds 2 and 3 (my current round), I basically ignored trying to make my CV look stronger (though there's nothing wrong with that--it's just a matter of priorities) and focused entirely on pushing the boundaries of my own scholarship. No matter how good we are--and undoubted, I'm willing to bet that most of you on these boards are outstandings writers/thinkers--there's always room for improvement. And this sort of investment (directly into our scholarship) is, I think, far more valuable to our growth as scholars in the long run. As opposed to...say, retaking that goddamned GRE's. (though if your GRE verbal score is horribly low, you may have to bite the bullet and retake it anyway). In any case, focusing on my writing/scholarship actually worked. I'm pretty happy with my offers this round. Ironically, although I didn't have publication plans for my writing sample (unlike past years, when I tried very to get my previous WS published), one of the professors at a program that admitted me is working with me get this piece into publication shape. I suspect (though it's hard to generalize from my case) that--again, ironically--only when I stopped focusing on getting a publication, could I actually begin to write in a way that's actually productive. I hope this doesn't become a trend This was awesome. Look at it this way: at least you might be the only one in your school who doesn't come down with an STD

What do you mean by "privilege?" Do you mean the name on the diploma? The preparation/training/talent (and yes, also luck and timing) that marks a successful applicant from a less than successful one? We disagree, I think, in that I'm firmly convinced that it's the latter that gets applicant into grad school. And while the name on the diploma obviously influences one's opportunities to gain the latter, the two are not undivorceable. Nor is it as rare as your pessimism suggests. It wasn't intended as a pitch. I had not originally meant to get into this discussion in this particular thread...but in short (and this is coming from someone who DOESN'T have an impressive name on her diploma), it's not the school name that counts. While ad-comms in top programs are more likely to pay attention to applicants whose LoR's are written by colleagues that they know and respect (who may be more likely to work in other well-known programs), they DON'T systematically toss out applicants who graduated from unknown programs. This isn't to say that applicants from top programs don't have an advantage. They have lots of advantages: they tend to be better-trained, better-prepared, better-advised in an environment that pushes them further and trains them to be more attractive scholars. But while it's obviously easiest to obtain those advantages from within the program, I do think that it's possible for a hard-working, determined applicant to gain that preparation on his own. It might require milking the resources at the (not-so-well-ranked) BA or MA program for all it's worth, studying independently, finding opportunities in exchange programs, etc, etc. But it's possible. I never suggested--and never will--that anyone can get in anywhere. I am arguing that far more of an applicant's success is in his or her hands, rather than predetermined by the name on the diploma. Even then, frankly, there are some extremely dedicated applicants who don't have "what it takes" (and I certainly can't describe exactly what "it" is), and for those, a PhD program--much less Harvard--isn't in the cards. But the defining line ISN'T whether or not the applicant went to a brand-name school. There are lots of articles (some more accurate than others) by disgruntled (and yet, often current) academics in the Chronicle. He has good points, but I definitely don't buy his argument, wholesale.

I know students (yes, plural) with your background who got to choose between Berkeley and Harvard/Yale. The name on your diploma doesn't determine your application fate, though certain schools do tend to provide more opportunities for you to attain/demonstrate the level of scholarship that top programs look for. Even if Cornell doesn't work out for you, good luck with the rest of your applications.

My point is, applying for graduate school (particularly at the PhD level) is a really personalized process. I'm not sure how one can talk about "the best program" at such a generalized level. What would you consider to be a "good program?" Every program has its strength and weaknesses, particularly strong research foci, etc. It's difficult to gauge the program unless you have a particular set of criterion in mind--and that's, of course, relative to you. I suppose what I'm saying is that I'm not trying to be nosy, but if you're looking for helpful answers, it helps for those of us that knows these programs to understand where you're coming from. You have to apply for a particular field at the PhD level (perhaps at the MA too?).

It depends on the program, but as a general rule, showing interest (especially if it's your top choice) is advisable. Perhaps you write to the DGS, reiterate your interest in the program, and ask about the waitlist history (has other waitlistees been accepted in the past?) This way, you can solicit details without pressing him/her too much? Good luck!

This COMPLETELY depends on what field you're applying to, what professors you'd like to work with, etc. What is your field of interest? Are you looking at the MA or PhD programs?

*hugs* I'm so, so sorry. However, please know that you really can't read too much into one unsuccessful round (if this round doesn't work out for you). Applying successfully straight out of college is quite rare. Because the ad-comm is making decisions based on 3 years worth of coursework rather than 4 (and most students seem to "grow" the most during the last year), you're at a huge disadvantage. MANY current grad students were turned down across the board once (or twice) then successfully reapplied after a year or two off. To address the more practical side of your question...have you considered things like "Teach for America" or AmeriCorp? Or even working for the "evil" (yes, they are evil) testprep companies? When I graduated, I took off across the country, slept on a friend's couch for a few weeks. I worked in a retail store over the holidays, and then for a testprep company (summers tend to busy for them). If you did well on the GRE's, you can put that to use...though (this probably goes without saying) that sort of teaching won't be very productive for your CV.

Oops. Didn't mean to suggest otherwise. I've obviously never been on the job market, so I can't really say programs look for when they're hiring. I do suspect that it will vary depending on the job and the type of school (R1 versus liberal arts, for example). I was told that the only teaching experience that counts for the job market are strictly academic ones. (And in fact, unless one is applying for directly relevant field, tutoring, non-academic teaching, tech writing, "job" experience aren't very helpful even for grad apps). And it seems that publications, the dissertation (of course!), and an impressive interview/job talk tend to be weighed more strongly than teaching experience--though this definitely varies by the type of institution. In short, it's far more about what you publish (and generally, critical rather than creative work--though one of my old professors wrote novels on the side. He was also tenured well before I was born, so this might have been in the "good old days"). I'm not sure that the entire top 50 have fairly decent placement rates (and conversely, there are programs outside the top 50 that place quite well). In previous rounds when I remember being dismayed by some of the stats...though it's hard to say to what extend the program does or doesn't adequately prepare its graduate. Some PhD-holders do not find jobs because...well, it's not a priority for them, or they're dealing with strict geographic limitations.

It's fantastic that you're flexible enough to have options outside of academia/the humanities. All four of the programs that you're applying to this year place quite well. While the placement data might not be available online, as I noted above, you CAN ask for it once you're in. (I was admitted to one of your four programs. They handed me a full list of graduates/first job/current job as soon as I arrived for the visit. From what I gather, this is pretty common. Schools--outside the handful that places INSANELY well--might not list all the details, but you if admitted, you'll have access to it with plenty of time to make your decision. In short, I suppose, I'm suggesting that one wouldn't need to rely on the relatively dated, relatively unreliable data (without details or explanations) on phds.orgs, at least for the placement info. Granted, this info is generally not available before you're admitted...but personally (not sure if this works for everyone), I focused on research fit while trying to figure out where to apply, and filtered for info such as placement and time-to-completion only when I had offers.

This is a pretty big thing to lie about, especially since it's pretty easy to be caught in the lie. I don't think any program would actually do it. Then again, what's a "good placement" will depend on what sort of job/environment you're looking for

http://graduate-school.phds.org/about/sources I'm not sure of this, but I think much of the info is coming from the National Research Council numbers...from 1993. (New NRC results were due out in 2003...but has been incredibly delayed). NRC rankings are probably the most reputable--certainly far moreso than the US News and World Report. I looked at a few schools where I have a sense of the current numbers. PhDs.org seems pretty far off...but again, I have no idea if what I looked at is a representative sample Just a note of caution regarding the numbers, particularly things like time-to-completion. The numbers can be misleading if one isn't aware of the reasons behind one. One program with a particularly high time-to-completion rate has a policy of NOT cutting off their PhD students (many programs will force students out the door, with or without a job). Most PhD'ers beyond their 6th year at this program are actually done with their dissertation. They wait to file, and in the meantime, keep their TAship, insurance, and loan deferrals while hunting on the job market. While this atmosphere might not be attractive to everyone, I'd be willing to overlook a higher time-to-completion rate if this is indeed the main cause. All I'm saying is...see if you can get a sense of why the numbers are what they are, and take that into consideration when you made decisions. Also, most programs will disclose things like time-to-completion rates, placement rates (and often, a complete chart of who was placed where for the last 5-10 years), etc...once you're accepted. Just ask. Or they might even slip it into your visitation folder without you having to ask for it.

Wow, UCLA has been good to gradcafe posters! Congrats, soxpuppet, jblevins, lompoc727, and *EDIT* JennysFieldOriginal. Congrats and fingers crossed for you, Count Fosco!

Is it possible that the causation--at least in some instances--might be reversed here? That if candidates on these forums do tend to have strong seasons, it's because the connections and insights they learn from these forum (and others like it) help them become better informed about the process and consequently, more successful applicants? Along the same lines, as I argued in the stats forums, the numbers (and undergrad alma maters) that people tend to feel comfortable disclosing are higher/better known not necessarily because they're representative of the board, but because people who feel confident about these aspects of their apps are more likely to post that info? And frankly, I HAVE seen applicants from small, unknown undergraduate (and/or MA) programs do extremely well. There's no doubt that they may be at a disadvantage: a smaller program might not provide all the resources, attention, and opportunities that allows an applicant to reach his or her scholarly potential...but everything in my experience has suggested that this isn't an impossible obstacle. From what I can tell, these applicants take every opportunity available during their undergrad years, AND then some. They continue to study and learn on their own...which may be more difficult, but is often more rewarding. Without the focused advising/feedback that is more readily available to their peers at better-known, better-ranked programs, it sometimes takes these students longer to actually attain that level of scholarship that will make them competitive in the applicant pool. (But then again, the same can be said of their Ivy league peers who didn't *quite* take advantage of their abundant opportunities and resources during their time in college). It isn't about snobbery or class prestige. From what I've seen in 3 rounds of applications, the students who get in are the ones who are well-prepared, regardless of where they obtained their BA's. But certainly, a BA-holder from Harvard or Yale has more opportunities to become well-prepared than a student from Podunk U. Then again, every year, I see a few outstanding Podunk U applicants beat out the Ivy's. While I'm sure that there are certain foddy-duddy elitist professors on ad-comms, most, I believe, truly looks for the best applicants that can complement the department's strengths.