strokeofmidnight

Unfortunately, I don't think Michigan updates notification. I was admitted last week, but my application still says: You submitted this application to University of Michigan Rackham Graduate School on 1/1/2010 1:01:00 AM. You can still work on any remaining parts of your application, but the application form itself is no longer available for editing.

I received an email from the graduate school (not the department) that I should pay my application fee. I'm recommended for acceptance and they will not send out the official letter until then. The tone of the email suggests that it only went out to accepted candidates who had neglected to pay that fee--it's more of a "hurry up and give us our money" than a "congrats, you're in!" email. This seems to be a routine notice for Berkeley's Graduate division. I don't think they even realize that they're breaking the news to us early. Independent of this email, Berkeley English has made all decisions and will notify soon, probably early next week.

I don't think you can really put a number on it. It REALLY is all about fit. If you do have the time and resources, apply to every program that is a good fit for your project (which, of course, requires figuring out exactly what that project is first). No matter how strong of an applicant you are, I don't think a program will admit you if your work isn't a good fit for their strengths. If you spend, say a few months carefully researching programs (faculty publications, recent dissertations, etc), you might narrow down the list to anywhere from just two or three to a dozen schools. It really depends on how to articulate your interests. Still, if you find that 30 programs seem like a good fit for you, you might want to re-evaluate the scope of your project.

I did not apply to Buffalo, but thank you for being so considerate to your fellow applicants and doing this early. I've said on waitlists until April 15th before...and it ain't pretty.

I didn't post to gradcafe's results. And that entry predates my acceptance--predates, actually, when decisions were finalized, which is why I think it's either false or extremely unusual.

It's a bit early for Berkeley. They should begin notifying next week. I'm guessing that that survey result is either someone pulling our leg, or a professor emailing a favorite applicant before the official calls/emails go out. Good luck!

My acceptances are in my signature. I work on the 18th and 19th century British novel, Romanticism, and Enlightenment philosophy. Eli--I hope you're not using this info to try to gauge your chances at schools that have started to notify. You'll drive yourself nuts and this isn't very accurate. While some programs do have rigid slots, the allocations are unpredictable, since it's influenced by previous cohort makeup and faculty hires. And most programs, from my experience, are very flexible about "field coverage" among applicants. They realize that many of us will change our minds, hence and tend to recruit the best fit for the program overall, rather than...say, the "top 4 Victorianists." In any case, good luck! I hope that those who are still waiting will hear good news soon. It is extremely early still. Many programs won't notify first round offers until the 3rd or 4th week of February...and notifications will often continue on through March.

Kafkaesque, I work on the novel. I do wander into "poetics territory" occasionally, but would never presume to call myself a poetics person Good luck with your applications! The statistics at UPenn are making me edgy, and I've effectively crossed them off my list. I did apply to Berkeley as well. The program's top rankings is daunting (as is the doom and gloom news on the CA budget), but it was also the best fit for the current trajectory of my research.

I don't know about Chicago, but I'm pretty sure that Buffalo will be making more offers. They tend to call one or two candidates very early (January or early February), but make most of their decision in waves throughout February. Not sure if this makes a difference, but I do know the student who was admitted and posted on gradcafe. She was pretty much a shoe-in for Buffalo, so I'm not surprised that they called so early. She's also NOT in poetics. Did you also apply to UPenn and Berkeley? Buffalo's poetics program is indeed nifty and cool (I'm less familiar with Chicago's), but I'd place the other two schools up there as well.

I'm hoping to have it both ways. My partner is currently in a PhD program. My top choice coincides with his program--it would have been a top pick for me even if he wasn't in the picture. IF this works out, we would both land in an ideal program for our different subfields (though we're both in English). For what it's worth, we've both made some pretty tough decisions in order to avoid breaking up or a long-distance relationship. When when were both applying during a previous round, I had turned down ivy league offers to avoid dealing with the distance. Still, much as I would love to get into his program, I am applying broadly...and would be willing to go elsewhere if that's what it takes. Even if it works out for grad school, we'll probably face the same dilemma when we go on the job market in 5 or 6 years.

Northwestern tends to be a poor indicator. In the recent past, I know applicants who were not even interviewed by Northwestern but accepted into the Columbia, Brown, and/or Berkeley. Hang in there.

I don't think it matters for private schools, since they don't have tiered tuition.

Complete aside: I LOVE your username. I crack up every time I see it. (and good luck with UIUC. I hope that it'll reward your patience).

I think UIUC tends to notify sporadically, rather than sending out letters all at the same time. I was accepted into the program a few years ago. A friend also received positive news a few days later, and I recall seeing gradcafe notices posted up to a week after her acceptance. I don't know if that pattern will still hold this year (Northwestern seemed to have changed their ways), but if it does, there's a good chance that UIUC isn't done making offers yet. Good luck.

I'm assuming that you're only discussing public schools? I would imagine that it would depend on the program. I think (not sure if this is true everywhere) that the program will pay less for your tuition if you're in-state, and may be more likely to either accept you (if they fund everyone) or offer you funding. On the other hand, I can also see why some programs might strive for a certain amount of geographic diversity, and might actually encourage out-of-state or international students...who can bring a different perspective. That said, there's also the current economy to content with. I'd suspect that in badly hit states like California or New York, programs might prefer in-state students right now, simply because many of them are facing strict funding limitations.

How is it that you manage to say in two sentences what I can't quite convey in 5 paragraphs?

Katalytik, I'm in a completely different field, so my experience might not be at all useful. I think that as a general rule, there is some truth to what you're suggesting. Certainly, there's something of a snowball effect: a introduction from a established professor can help to open doors (but only if your work is already "at that level") and distinguish your paper from others that are perhaps equally as interesting/good (however one defines this). And of course, once you're published, it's easier to network, publish, find a job, etc. Having access to famous/influential can help you get your foot in the door, but I don't think that it is ever the determining factor. Those introductions are helpful, but not necessary. A strong piece can stand on its own. (That said, it's often easier to write a good piece if one is being guided by a professors who knows the field well). I do think, however, that a "brand name" is a bit simplistic. In my field, some of the most interesting work in the various subfields is NOT being done at the "brand name" universities (the ones that are most likely to grace bumper stickers). Some of the most recognizable academic names--the ones with the most clout--work at little-known (or only locally-recognized) state schools. I'm sure that most future grad students know this already: pick the best programs for your field (and specialty), rather than the biggest "brand" names. Sure, announcing yourself as a Harvard PhD might impress your relatives at Thanksgiving dinner (until they inevitably ask: "So what is it that you do anyway?"), but the top scholars for your field might not actually be at Harvard. Also, for the many (majority of?) applicants who aren't at the top school for their field or don't have automatic access to the most renowned professors,* there are other alternatives that might help them gain the same advantage. It's not uncommon in my field (though this varies from school to school) to either study at other universities through exchange programs, or ask professors from other schools to sit on one's committee. Networking plays a role, but it's also not indiscriminate. I suspect that a famous professor would never champion the work of what he or she would consider a "weaker" or "average" student or--to be blunt--take up the student in the first place. So while an introduction or a shortcut into these established networks can help, your work must already be (what is that awful phrase?) "pre-qualified" before you can get your foot in the door. Exactly what "pre-qualified" entails is beyond me. I suspect that in addition to intellectual quality (however it's defined), there are also ideological lines to be toed....but I'm far too new to this process to explain (or even understand) the politics at work. *It's also worth noting: many of the most famous professors do not work with graduate school. They're SO famous that they don't have to bother with daily nuisances like...teaching or advising.

Don't tell me that your schools will be closed because of the Olympics!? Though if this is the case, I'm actually pretty envious. I can't concentrate at all. I'd love to give up the pretense of focusing on my work, but alas, school just started again. Comp Lit tends to notify in February, doesn't it? I've noticed that in past years, it's usually either at the same time or a bit earlier than English programs (which generally notify the second through last weeks of February). Good luck!

Thank you for the reassurance. My statement was already far over the word limit, so I don't think I could have sneaked in a "this is why I love NYC" paragraph in there as well. Good luck with NYU--and your other apps this year! According to gradcafe results from the past two years, it looks as though they notify in the last week of February. It feels like an awfully long wait.

Seadub, We'll find out in a month or so You seem hell-bent on proving that you are right, and anyone who disagrees with you is not wrong, but also intellectually insufficient. There's no point in having a conversation under these circumstances. Did it strike you that the many people who are disagreeing with your perspective might have valid reasons for holding the opposing stance? You also seem determined to NOT "believe" me when I cite sources that you--as well as I and anyone else on these boards--knows that I cannot quote or name. You're convinced that there's no possible way that someone could have access to information that you lack. So be it. At this point, everyone's apps are in and it's not as though our speculation would make a difference either way. Dealing with your personal attacks, frankly, isn't worth it. Best of luck to you in this process.

You claim that my info is very misleading, but you fail to explain why or how. Why are my statements wrong? Unless I was lied to by professors on ad-comms at the very schools that you initially named, or am lying (I hope you're not going so far as to accuse of either), you might want to address my arguments. Simply stating that your claims are facts--and mine are misleading--isn't really sufficient. A few things to note: yes, a 3.6 is "low" compared to other programs that tend to admit applicants who typically graduate with a 3.8 or 3.9. However, I was not at all suggesting that this is TOO low--I'm pointing out that a sky-high GPA isn't necessary. If anything, since there will always be several applicants admitted with a 3.9 or higher, the 3.6 average suggests there are also applicants accepted with sub 3.5 scores. In other words, a very strong GPA isn't absolutely necessary...at least at THIS program. I never indicated that the GPA doesn't matter, or that there isn't at least some correlation between well-prepared applicants and strong grades. I am suggesting, however, that there are plenty of exceptions to that general correlation that should give students room to hope (and of course, to work towards) that they can end up in a top program despite lower numbers. As for the 620 quant GRE score, two things come to mind. 1. You confuse correlation with causation. It seems perfectly reasonable that many well-prepared applicants (strong writing, enticing statement/project, etc) would also score well on quant. This is especially true at Duke. Thanks to the program's theoretical leaning, many of its students have a math or philosophy as well as English and thus are more likely to also have the skills that would enable one to do well on the quant. section. This by no means indicates that Duke specifically selects for high quant scores. (or for that matter, place great stock in the GRE's at all). Duke's own website emphasizes--and I and several have many times--that it's the writing and SoP that will count far more. 2. 620 Quant isn't bad, but it also isn't very high. It is, as you noted, the 52nd percentile of all individuals that take the GRE. That larger pool includes students who are applying for masters (and on the whole, score a bit lower) and the many students who do not get in at all, as well as students who are shut out of top universities such as Duke. This seems to be a perfectly average score among literature applicants--not a score that is so high that it would suggest the program is specifically selecting for it. For what it's worth, I was an admitted Duke applicant not too long ago. My quant score is far higher than the listed average. Along we (admitted students) do not routinely discuss this information, I do know that while some of my peers also had such high scores on quant, several others scored hundreds of points below that average. The statistics that are listed doesn't give you a sense of the range, and can't be used for the deduction that are stating as fact. You might also want to leave the personal attacks out of this conversation.

Your example is supposed to point out that someone who has poor numbers has absolutely no chance at getting into a strong English PhD program. I don't see what the SoP--in this example--has anything to do with it. You ARE, however, completely dismissing the independent (and incredibly influential) role of the SoP in this process by lumping it with the lower numbers. You've also "forgotten" to address the rest of my points. I don't see why you feel the need to be so abrasive and rude to your peers. What exactly do you gain from it? There's plenty of room to disagree without attacking everyone else...and such behavior will only alienate you in graduate school. While you certainly don't have to be friends with everyone, your career as well as your social life will suffer if you manage to make everyone dislike you.

Every English department (and often different professors on the same ad-comm in the same department) will look at the GRE scores slightly differently. However, the general rule seems to be that quant counts for very little, if at all. Jacib's views on this are far more consistent with what I've been told (from English professors who serve on ad-comms): many programs (even those within the top ten or top twenty) will not even look at the quant score. At all. For those programs, it won't matter if you scored in the 99th or 1st percentile. Seadub is wrong, I think, about the role that the GRE TENDS to play in English PhD programs. Some schools (the top one in the country, for example) will not look at your GRE score--verbal or quant--at ALL. It's required as a formality for the graduate school, but doesn't factor into the admissions process. In most places, however, the verbal scores DOES factor into the admission process. (700 verbal is a good rule of thumb, but is by no means inflexible. I was admitted into top 10 and ivy league PhD English programs with a lower verbal score). If you look at Duke English's recent statistics, for example, the AVERAGE GRE score of their accepted students last year is a 662 (and average GPA is only a 3.6!), and it's certainly a top ten program: http://gradschool.duke.edu/about/statistics/admiteng.htm . I suspect that Duke places slightly less emphasis on the numbers than some of their top-ranked peers, but this goes to show that the scores certainly are not the most important factors. It is worth noting, however, that graduate schools (as opposed to the English programs) will sometimes have overall min. that you will need to meet if you want to be considered for funding. Those tend to be on the low side (1000, sometimes 1200) and tend to be most pressing at public schools, where funding is generally tighter. If it's still possible, you might want to consider studying for the quant and re-taking the entire exam. A bit of studying can go a long ways, especially if you're starting off on the low end. A 100 point boost in your quant score (which is far more attainable than it may seem) might not help you secure admission, but it can tip the scale in your favor if you're admitted to a graduate school that has min. requirements for funding. Then again, it's now almost February, and the PhD deadlines for every top 20 school has already passed. You should find out within a few weeks how you fared. Good luck!

Oh dear. I did not see that at all when I wrote my NYU SoP. I simply submitted my usual template, tweaked towards NYU's faculty. Then again, I don't particularly want to live in NYU (I certainly wouldn't mind it, but I did not apply for the location), so I don't think I would have had a good answer anyway.

This is going to vary by school. A program that's very strong in, say, Medieval Studies might conceivable receive mostly medieval applicants, even if that's not the norm for the rest of the field. In general, I've heard that 20th century/modernism attracts the most applicants, by far. They seems to comprise between 30-70% of the total pool. Of course, the "split" can be really complicated: some schools separate modernism from the rest of the 20th century (pomo, theory, etc). Some generally lump Americanists into their own group, separate from the British 20th/21st century people. Some programs (especially ones where this is a specialty) will separate poetics students (who tend to be in the 20th century) from the rest of the modernist/20th century applicants. If programs group faculty by research interests, there's a good chance that they separate their applicants according. It's also worth noting...some programs shift out "theory" (poco, pomo, feminism, ethnicity studies, gender studies, etc) as a separate category. Depending on the schools, THIS can be the most competitive field. The "slot system" is also going to vary drastically from program to program. Some programs don't work with slots at all, and simply accept the best (however many) applications regardless of field. Some (many, I suspect) will tweak their slots to balance out numbers from previous cohorts, and/or based on their recent faculty hires.