strokeofmidnight

I agree with you that candidates really should research their programs and only apply to places where they would accept the offer (based on the preliminary, pre-visit info). That said, 10 seems a really arbitrary number. I would argue that it's impossible to set any ideal number (though there are ballpark figures that are more or less useful for certain applicants). For some of us, there are indeed 10 or 12 programs that are well-suited for our work. For others with less popular and more focused projects, 4 programs would be a stretch. Though if its any consolation, I think those who apply strictly by the rankings, without taking the time to inform themselves of the program's particular strengths and weaknesses, are likely to be culled out anyway. Programs privilege fit--they want applicants well suited for their own strengths (or growth areas)...and who have clearly thought about their research trajectories. It's hard to fake fit, and the applicants who apply mindlessly certainly won't be apply to pull that off.

In the handful of English programs where I know the ages/status of a full (or nearly full) cohort...overwhelmingly few students came straight out of a BA program. (I should note: by "straight," I meant graduated the year before). Going through the numbers in my head, it varies somewhere between 5 and 20 percent. Most students either came in with an MA (sometimes an MFA), or took at least a year off after college. In speaking with a ad-comm members (though they're clustered in only a few programs, so I can't claim that this is representative), most seem to express concern when applicants go straight after a BA. In their experience, these students are far more likely to not finish the program...it isn't a matter of talent, but rather (as others have noted) maturity. I'm deeply curious where the "schools don't like MA applicants" argument comes from. I've seen it float around gradcafe quite a bit, up but it doesn't bear out in my experience. (I've been a part of the graduate life at 4 different programs, ranked from within the top 5 to just barely within the top 5). At these program, often up to 30-50% of the cohort came in with MA's (I'd love to compare that with the percentage of applicants who applied with MA's, but that info seems pretty obscure). Obviously, this seems to vary drastically from department to department, even among English programs. There are departments (or so I'm told--I've never personally encountered any) that favors BA-only applicants, and departments that actually seem to prefer applicants with a different MA, but both seem rather exceptional--even among top programs. As a systematic rule, I don't think that having an MA puts the applicant at a disadvantage. It may be true that MA applicants are held to a different standard, but frankly, after 1-2 years of graduate study, that bar seems reasonable (and entirely achievable). More accurately, perhaps, if the bar is higher, most MA-holders are also far better prepared to meet/exceed that bar. And for what it's worth, most of the candidates that I know of who were rejected across the broad after their first round and went on for stepping-stone MA's fared incredibly well (multiple offers from top programs). Obviously, it wasn't the degree itself that helped them...but rather that the additional training enabled them to write astronomically stronger writer samples, create a much more focused and appealing project in their SoP's--and it paid off. While I am rather biased and think the world of my friends, I suspect that their successes are not anomalous. It's also worth noting: certain subfields seem more prone to the MA. I don't actually know this, but my sense is that Medievalists--thanks to the intense language training required--complete a terminal MA more frequently than other fields. And of course, earning an MA first seems very common (even expected? not sure that I'd go that far) for international students. All of this only applies to English, of course.

I completely understand. I've been waiting on Duke as well (I was also rejected), and although I saw this coming, it was a relief to officially cross them off my list. The rest of this week, if gradcafe results histories are any indication, should bring a lot of activity particularly among the top schools. I'm looking forward to definitive answers, even if it means more rejections. Just watch. After that little speech, I'm going to end up waitlisted at every single one of my remaining programs

Sure. Pm me?

I suppose part of my point is that it's all too easy for the "stats" request to reduce the sense of community in an anonymous place like this, where the only "face" we present to each other are through these posts. As I noted earlier, if I benefited immensely from my peers (most of them from communities like this one)--and I absolutely did and will always be grateful--it is largely because I encountered them in a setting where we were able to see the "person" behind the statistics and where the sense of competition is largely (and willfully) pushed aside to foster collegiality. By the very fact that they invite comparisons, the "stats," I think, directly contribute to a counterproductive atmosphere of anxiety and competitiveness--even if that was never the original intention of the poster or the respondents. It's the fine difference between approaching your fellow posters here as future colleagues and friends, rather than current competition. In my experience, the very community that you're wishing for is stifled by the atmosphere that is fostered--in part--by these requests that reduce an applicant to a series of numbers. (And numbers that, I should note, aren't even very indicative of their chances for success). I tried to avoid haranguing the requesters by phrasing my original post as a series of questions to think about--even though I have an obvious bias in all of this. You're right that I probably *should* have simply ignored the requests, as I did for years in the past. I suppose I see whatever "peace of mind" to result from the numbers as a false one--but fictions can be a necessary comfort, and I probably should have let it be. Personally, when I wasn't aware of how the numbers are factored into the process (and I suspect, most first-time applicants are in that boat), the numbers scared the hell out of me, rather than offered comfort. Edit: and for what it's worth, I think most posters are in your boat. The vast majority of the successful applicants that I know of had already graduated before they reapplied. While they (and I) certainly leaned on former professors for advice and feedback, communities such as this CAN become a valuable source of critical and mental support--if applicants genuinely come to see each other as friends, rather than merely competition. And while I know that not everyone is interested that level of involvement...well, I suppose I'm suggesting that its possible, but requires one to rethink how to make use of these boards. In the end, I'm certainly not prescribing how these boards *should* function...I suppose, I'm trying to sketch out what is jeopardized when they are primarily used as a source of quantifiable statistics.

Congrats! Though if you were the one who posted in the results, i just wanted to note that UCLA typically offers full funding to everyone. I wouldn't take the lack of funding info in the decision letter to indicate that they're actually not giving out funding. (At the graduate level, the UC funding crisis is massively over-exaggerated).

This, I admit, was largely on my mind when I posted that question. I can't even begin to explain just how genuinely rewarding and lasting the sense of camerdiere can be--assuming that one treats this as a community, not merely a place to scope out the competition or obtain info. Although I wasn't so active on this community in past years (in my very limited interactions, it felt hostile), the friends that started off online in other communities have been invaluable. On a practical note, my former "competition" critiqued repeated drafts of my SoP and writing samples in later rounds, offer suggestions and insight into their own programs and professors, alerted me to upcoming conferences, suggested sources and publications that was useful to my work...essentially kept me calm and sane through this process. More importantly, they've become friends--I've slept on their couches, invited them for dinner, ranted to them about crazy advisers or bad days. Grad school can be a very lonely place at times, even when one has a good cohort. It really helps to have friends/colleagues in other programs. For many of us, communities such as this is a place where such friendships can begin. Yeah, it's kinda mushy, but I'd rather be mushy than competitive

I'm curious how the email/call details are useful? Personally (though many acceptees seem to feel otherwise), I'm pretty uncomfortable disclosing that sort of detail, especially since it doesn't seem to be nearly as helpful to those who are still waiting as the very fact that the school indeed has notified, or any info about future notification patterns. And I'm not quite sure where you are getting the notion (if I read it correctly) that funding is linked to advisers. English PhD programs simply don't quite work that way--that's far more common in the sciences. In many places, you don't even acquire an adviser until you start orals, at the end of second year. My undergrad is pretty unconventional as well. As a general rule, our undergrads do not fare extremely well when applying to grad schools, but there are always, always anomalies. Among the two or three years that I'm aware of, our students have ended up at Berkeley, Yale, Duke, and UCLA, etc. It's no secret, unfortunately, that most students in the top graduate programs also went to top undergrad programs. While I truly don't think that there is a specific preference for certain names on the diploma, students from top (and often smaller) schools are frequently far better prepared. Their LoR's tend to be weighed more heavily, since their professors would have been exposed to more high-caliber students. Still, these are all factors that can be mitigated: finding the right LoR writer and working closely with the professor...doing a senior thesis, or writing longer research papers, independent studies, etc. And of course, never underestimate the power of truly independent study--even after graduation. For some students, a year or two in an MA program and help fill out any weaknesses (though this is by no means the only way of doing so). In short, I don't think that the name on your diploma, per se, really matters. But if your undergrad doesn't frequently send its students to grad school, you may need to proactively play catch-up in order to be as competitive as your peers from the top English programs. But for what it's worth, every year, some of the most successful applicants that I meet did their BA at Podunk U.

I think the entire month of February is a black hole of sheer pointlessness. I have never been so unproductive--unfortunately, I still have papers due, and plenty more to grade. Part of the reason that I brought this up is that it can be really terrifying. When I first applied, I had palpitations when I discovered that my competition were (apparently) all 3.9/780 verbal graduates of ivy league and top 5 SLAC universities. (my first set of "stats" were nowhere near that high). As it turns out, I got into programs that they did not...and vice versa. In my second round, I fared far worse--but had much high scores. Some of the students who far "outperformed" me in the application pool came from lesser-known programs, and/or had far worse stats. It seems to be a poor predictor....but it can (for some of us, at least) add to the sense of inferiority and panic. The MA versus undergrad (and also whether or not they took time off) might be a really useful thing to know. My sense is that while every program wants strong, but malleable students, programs have definite preferences on this score. Perhaps we should start a post/poll on this issue in March, when most results are in?

I think it really depends on the program. I inquired into the admissions procedures of the programs that accepted me (both this year, and in past years) as well as my alma mater, and it seems very difficult to generalize. On one extreme, there are schools that do not use the "stats" at all. I can't name the school, but this is one that actually publishes "average" numbers (and disconcertingly high ones at that!), but I was told by several members of the ad-comm that there is no quantitative cut and they barely look at the scores. In this case, they do read every SoP and writing sample (though "skim" might be a better word for it--hence, why I was also told to make sure that the first two pages are clear and compelling). The stats do factor in for funding purposes (to separate "regular" from "extra" funding packages) after admissions decisions are made, since the grad school does seem to take the numbers into consideration--and they control the purse-strings. However, the more common procedure (more than half the programs that I inquired into uses some variation of this) does entail a "numbers" cut for the first round, usually on the GRE, sometimes also the GPA. The exact number varies: the highest that I've seen was 650 subject (when required), 700 verbal. No one seems really concerned about quant or the AW score. (As one might suspect, the top-ranked schools tend to use the highest "cuts"). Other programs used 680, 650, and even 600 verbal as the "bar"--and it seems that substantially higher scores aren't actually that helpful, as long as one clears the passing bar. At most of the programs (perhaps all?) that I asked about, there's some sort of safety-net for applicants that don't meet the cut. Someone will go through the "too low" pile and fish out promising applicants based on their LoR/SoP/first page or two of the writing sample. The GPA "cut" seems really inconsistent but a 3.5 was mentioned, though everyone seemed to emphasize that it's quite flexible. Vast allowances are made it seems for tougher schools, schools without grade inflation, MA applicants, the BA gpa of MA-holders, international students, students who have been out of school for a while, students that show "upward trajectory," students with strong LoR writers...you get the picture. I suspect that it's more important that the student conveys his/her preparation and commitment, then meet a specific number. There probably are schools that do obsess about the numbers and will systematically reject applicants that fall below it. But honestly, it seems that there are exceptions to every so-called "hard" cut, even if it isn't formally build into the admissions review process. I suspect (but don't actually know) that a call from a well-respected colleague regarding his/her "star student" might be sufficient to rescue an app from the first cut, even if the program normally rigorously enforces the numbers.

I'm curious why so many applicants are requesting stats from the admitted students. I do understand the obvious temptation: that knowing the numbers can somehow give a sense of what it takes to be accepted. Still, I really don't think that the statistics (the GRE, the GPA/undergrad name) reveals very much about what it takes to be accepted. Certainly, graduating from a top-flight English undergrad programs can give the applicant greater opportunities for advanced scholarship, better-known LoRs. Granted, as well, that higher GRE's can help paint a picture of a more consistent, less risky applicant. And GRE's (to some extent, at some programs) do serve as flexible cutoff scores, and can help or hurt one's chances for fellowships (at some programs--even places that require the numbers--they're not really factored into the admissions process at all). The stats are relatively TINY part of the application process. Applicants with identical scores from the same university can end up with very different results...and as should be obvious by now, schools will accept students with a wide variety of background and numbers. For what it's worth, this is not my first time applying. I actually fared much worse with slightly higher stats. In the past, I was turned down by schools that accepted students with far lower "stats"...and watching my peers over the years, some of the most successful applicants (multiple offers from the Ivy's, for example) had very GRE and/or GPA scores. There is some correlation, obviously, but I don't think that the "stats" can be at all predictive...or more to the point, relevatory of what it takes to do well in this process. "what it takes," I suspect, has a lot more to do with the applicant's ability to think, write, and argue on a sophisticated level that's appealing to the ad-comm. It's far more flexible--subjective, even, but not necessarily random--and can't be conveyed in a handful of numbers. What I'm appealing to...is not so much a touchy-feely concept of unqualifiable "aura" that triumphs over cold statistics...but rather that most programs are indeed--as their websites tend to hint--looking holistically at the application, rather than obsessing over numbers.

It really depends on the department, I think. One school received none of my transcripts and none of my LoR's. They accepted me about 2 days after I sent over replacement transcripts and my 2 of my profs resubmitted their LoR's. As it turns out, they've already made decisions based off of my unofficial transcripts (my official ones had not even arrived), and actually gave me an offer with only two LoR's. I suspect that--particularly for programs with smaller cohorts--they will chase you down for missing materials if they're really interested. Still, it doesn't hurt to be cautious.

I think that it really depends on the program. None of the ten that I applied to have a Rhetoric/Comp sector at all--either within the English program, or as a separate entity. Well, Berkeley has a separate Rhetoric department, but it seems to be something of a misnomer...it definitely isn't Rhetoric/Comp program, but more along the lines of an interdisciplinary theory program (Stanford's Modern Language and Thought, Brown's Modern Culture and Media, Duke Lit, etc).

The worst in terms of getting in (shrinking spots, growing applicant pool), but perhaps a good year in terms of the job market. I'm in the humanities, and my field has a notoriously poor job market. However, with the shrinking cohort sizes in most programs (both last year and this year), there might be relatively fewer candidates on the market in 5-7 years. I'm also hoping that the current hiring freeze (or slowdown) that most programs are experiencing will lift over the next few years, and programs might just hire a bit more aggressively to compensate. Still, all of this is contingent on getting a decent offer from a program that will prepare you well for the job market...

I think it's wonderfully considerate of you to take the waitlistees into account. I wish more applicants/candidates with offers thought the same way. However, I wouldn't worry too much about sitting on the spot at Duke until you've visited the other schools. Duke typically will give out more offers than spots. The last time that I applied, they made 15 offers for 10 spots, placing 4 more students on the waitlist. So even if you do turn down the offer early, they'll need five more people to do the same before the program will go to the waitlist...and that's unlikely to happen by the end of February (especially since Duke's competitors will continue to notify throughout February and into March). In any case, have a wonderful visit at the other programs!

My partner received (and for what it's worth, accepted) the same package last year--also from the same department at Berkeley. It's worth noting, however, that he was an in-state student, and thus his entire tuition/fees were waivered. "I regret that, due to our limited funds, we are unable to offer you a fellowship during your first two years. The Department can, however, offer you Readerships which pay small stipends (currently between $2,900 and $4,600 per semester) and cover the in-state registration fees (currently $5,900 per semester)." If you're in-state, tuition and fees are covered by the readerships/TAships. If you're out of state, I think (check with the department on this) that you will pay the difference between in/out of state tuition for the first year only if you're diligent about establishing residency. Both the readerships and TAships will cover your health insurance (which is quite good) "After your second year, that is, after you have completed our course and language requirements, we can guarantee you at least two years of teaching appointments. These appointments currently pay between $16,600 and $18,400 per year and cover the in-state registrations fees. All teaching appointments are contingent upon satisfactory progress in our program." You can tap into the guaranteed TAships (which pay more than the readerships) beginning your third year. "You will receive a Doctoral Completion Fellowship if you advance to candidacy for the Ph.D. by the end of the third year of study, receive a satisfactory Annual Progress Report, and if you are on track to file the dissertation in a timely manner. If you choose to accept the DCF, the possibility of financial support from the University ends after the seventh year." This is new. It used to be called the "normative time dissertation fellowship" and did not carry a 7-year cut-off. But so far, this is the only real change that I've noticed. Basically, if and only if you pass your orals and the language exams by the end of your third year (most people in this department do), you are guaranteed a one-year fellowship that you can use starting your fourth year. HOWEVER, if you take the fellowship, the university will cut off all forms of non-outside funding after your 7th year. (There's a long story behind this--pm me for the details). Alternatively, you can (and should) apply for other fellowship possibilities. What this letter leaves out (understandably) is that the department takes "leftover" money at the end of the fisco year and distributes it to its non-fellowship students. That amount, while never guaranteed, can be in the thousands. For in-state students on readerships (ie, the ones that do not pay fees/tuition), the aggregate of that "leftover" funding and their readership stipend is comparable to TAship stipends at other programs. It obviously lacks the security of guaranteed TAships, but it may be worth considering. I can't tell you whether or not this is "good." It depends on what other offers you're considering. I will say that many current graduate students in this department have turned down far better funded offers from peer programs to attend. Don't take this offer for the prestige. But if this program is truly a good fit for you, and you think you can do your best work here, it's worth considering. Edited: Just to briefly respond to some of the other postings, this is a completely "normal" offer for this department at Berkeley and has been for at least several years. (Contrary to the comments posted, this isn't a newly impoverished offer caused by a UC system that's spiraling into bankruptcy). Berkeley typically gives out two different levels of funding. About half (perhaps less, especially this year) of the offers will include fellowships the first two years. The rest are exactly as you described. You'd want to pay attention during the visit (if you do decide to go), but from my experience, students are treated equally (both by their professors, and among their peers) regardless of their funding package...something that pleasantly surprised me. RE: bargaining/teaching hours. You might have some wiggle room if enough students awarded fellowships turn down the offer, but it probably won't be easy. It is worth asking around about RAships with professors in your area. They're rare (and entirely tied to the whims of the particular professor), but occasionally possible. The readership is a 25% appointment, which means you'd probably be working 10 hours a week (though it's clustered around papers and exams).

This isn't my first round either (it's my third, actually), though I'm not quite in the same boat because I did have offers in previous rounds. However, it seems quite common for applicants who were accepted nowhere in previous rounds to reapply and do very well. (My partner was turned down TWICE from every PhD program on his list before landing in his dream school. Several of my friends--now in top ten and ivy league programs--also applied more than once). Between the high number of applicants and the economy, this is something of an unpredictable year, which means you can be rejected from a less selective school but accepted into more selective one. Give it time. It's not even the middle of February, and schools will be making first round offers until March, often with additional offers coming down the pipeline throughout March.

I do know the frustrations and fears (I was breaking down in tears by the third week of February last year), but it looks like most of your schools haven't even began to notify. Give it time. It's far too early to panic.

That's fascinating! I work in gothic lit as well, though from a slightly different angle.

I'm also contemplating a Berkeley offer. To complicate matters, I know the department--and it's strange funding structure--fairly well. From what I can tell, Berkeley isn't hemorrhaging faculty. Berkeley faculty (like professors at other top programs) are routinely courted, but they also routinely rebuff the offers. I believe that they will lose one professor this year...from nearly 70 tenure/tenure-track profs. My home program (which I'd rather not disclose) is half that size and lost FOUR faculty members in one year. That's hemorrhaging. UC funding is tough. There's no getting around the fact that it has severely limited resources. But Berkeley's funding is comparable much higher than that of the other UC's (I should know). Their TA's are better paid, and their fellowship offers tend to be higher as well. If any admitted students are interested in discussing the details, please do pm me. Most importantly (to me), Berkeley English--I can't speak for other departments--is very good about under-promising and over-delivering (unlike other programs). My partner accepted a non-fellowship offer last year, which doesn't guarantee funding for the first two years (funding IS guaranteed for the 3rd, 4th, and 5th years). Every person that he talked to explained that it's very likely that he'd have some form of support the first two years anyway, but avoided making promises and emphasized that he won't know until close to the start of the semester. As long turns out, the amount that he actually received from Berkeley this year is MUCH higher than TAships in other programs, while his teaching load is much lower. Obviously, this varies from year to year, but in general, funding practices are far more generous than the letter would lead one to believe. Definitely talk to the current graduate students if you do visit.

Congrats! They may be safeties, but an acceptance is an acceptance. And good luck with the interviews. I really hope that this works out for both of you and our advice becomes moot. To address your question, while he was in his MA program, I worked. (My job had flexible--if undependable--hours and was quite mobile). Right now, he's in his first year of the PhD and I'm applying as a transfer student. The combined stipends from our programs is sufficient. However, if you and your partner do end up applying/reapplying in different years, it might be best to try for a job in the area...though that's obviously easier said than done.

I mentioned this in another thread, but you can try applying in different years. Once he (or you) is settled in a PhD program, the other person would have a better sense of which programs might work.

I'd also recommend not telling the program(s) until at least one of you have an offer. I know that you didn't bring this up, but would it be possible for one of you to accept (what I assume would be the best offer), and for the other to reapply in a different year if he/she isn't satisfied with the offer? Even if you don't have bargaining power, it might be easier to get your partner into your program (or vice versa) if he/she has a foot in the door. It will take a bit longer and can be rather risky, but might be an good option if you can't both land in the same program (or nearby ones). It might also help to avoid asking one of you to go to program that isn't well-suited. My partner and I also have (or rather, had) a two-body issue. We're in the same field, but different subfields. We were able to circumvent it mostly by applying in separate years, and re-orienting our options each time...and making some tough choices. He graduated college before I did, and applied twice before I submitted a single application. He landed in an MA program on the second try and I moved with him while he completed the MA. While he was in the MA, I applied to PhD programs. Although I ended up on the other side of the country, by the time my PhD had started, he had completed his MA and could move with me. The next year, both of us re-applied at the same time (I as a transfer student). Although we applied to several of the same schools, and aimed for larger metropolitan regions, my only offer and his best offer (by far) were on opposite coasts. Since he got into his dream school and I was still somewhat undecided about my field, I turned down my offer *sobs* to (1) stay on the same coast and (2) try again the next year (aka, this year). It's not entirely an altruistic decision: his school (and two others nearby) as among the best for my subfield as well, and I suspected that I would be a stronger candidate with another year's worth of graduate study under my belt. Good luck. I know how difficult and frustrating this situation can be.

While the US news and work report can be a useful starting point for research, it isn't very reliable as an actual set of rankings. The list itself is deeply problematic: 18th - 20th century British would include all of these fields: restoration, late 18th century, romanticism, victorianism, modernism, contemporary lit...and I'm probably missing a few of the smaller ones. The list might be more accurate (if its methodology isn't so problematic) if it evaluated these fields separately...but lumped together, it's not very useful. What topics/questions are you interested in pursuing? Any particularly methodolog(ies)? For the PhD, Duke, UC Berkeley, Michigan, NYU, WashU, and Cornell are quite strong in romanticism/transitioning into Victorian studies. Though it might make a difference if your interest lies more with the novel or poetry. I know that Yale is apparently at the top of the list, but I really struggled to find good faculty fits in that period...though this might not be the case for you. If you're looking at MA-only programs, NYU, UPenn comes to mind. Perhaps Brown as well, if you have a transaltantic bend. Unfortunately, none of these programs are funded. If you're looking for funded MA's, they tend to be scattered in less-prestigious, or even unranked programs. (US new and world report generally only ranks PhD programs...most funded MA's do not have a separate PhD track). You may have to do a bit of digging around to figure out fit and such. This list is probably incomplete, but might be a helpful starting point: http://community.livejournal.com/wgi_lounge_2009/10017.html

I applied to ten English programs this year. 3 have already notified. In past years, all of my acceptances were extended in February. Rejections sent by mail tend to arrive in March. The same pattern was true for most of my friends who applied to English PhD programs. You're probably best off following Jacib's advice: different schools will follow different schedules, and not every school will notify all accepted students at the same time. The results are not infallible (and programs sometimes do change their practice), but it should give you a sense of the spread. Good luck to you and your family.