Enjay

If you're adding more schools to the list, University of Illinois at Chicago has a dedicated Writing Center that I've seen a lot of the English Ed and Rhet/Comp PhD students TA at. We have a pretty decent placement record and a recently-retired professor here co-wrote (along with his wife, who is still a lecturer here) They Say, I Say, which gets a lot of circulation in in composition classrooms. Of course, if you're more into narrative over argumentative, we have people here that do that too, and the Writing Center itself has its own theories and practices as far as instructing their tutors, I'm just most familiar with the PhD side of things.

HELL YES. WAY TO GO

Wow. It's hard to imagine for me because in my MFA I got my one acceptance out of eight or so in mid-April and in the PhD, I got two acceptances in early February before I could even start worrying. I have no idea what it must be like to be stuck in that awkward waitlist limbo, but good luck to you. It seems like they've had a harder time wrangling their prose applicants this year.

Lame I don't know, if it's any consolation, there's next year and UIC seems to be really hard for anyone to get into.

Going to UIC for English/Creative writing. w/r/t the campus housing options, I did my undergrad in NYC and the rates aren't too far off from what they're quoting for UIC, then factor in less money spent on transportation and furnishings. I'm trying to get into it, as it seems like a tolerable option for me and they have close grad housing available.

Huzzah! Life still left! Yeah, it's a bit strange, I don't think that I knew applying that UIC was as selective as they are, I just saw the 9-10 PhD acceptances and didn't know that those would be split between CW and Crit, leaving 1-2 per genre. It would be nice to know at least one of the cohort going in instead of nervously being the one glared at for sneaking in and nabbing one of the prized spots.

Ah. Well, if you were poetry I would have told you that I took the one and maybe only spot, but I'm not privy to what's going on for the fiction side, other than one is supposed to give decisions by April 15th one way or the other. Maybe try e-mailing the director, Cris Mazza, and see what she has to say?

Which school are you talking about? Also, what genre might be helpful too.

Maybe it's a difference of environment? I had a dedicated CW major in college and while there were some English majors that dabbled, at the higher levels it was mostly people engrossed with contemporary stuff. Oddly, in my MFA, it was much the same. People who would take selfies with authors at the readings about town and trip over each other to get in line for tickets. A classmate of mine had three or four books published through small presses but had never read Yates in her life. Of course, when it came to contemporary material, she ran circles around me. For whatever it's worth, I know that there are plenty of programs out there, MFA or PhD, who basically don't give a damn how or what you score on the GREs for verbal or writing or subject lit. There are some that care a lot, too. It takes all kinds. That's all I'm really trying to get at here.

It's an argument I've been through in the past and I can understand the angle that you're coming at it from. I am aware of the contemporary writing world, it's hard not to be at least peripherally when a lot of your friends are writers and you go to literary events and readings about town. I probably spend more time at those than I do at my desk reading recent publications of whatever. I guess my gripe as I could articulate it is that I've been in dozens of workshops and sometimes run into those people who have never read anything from so far back as the earlier half of the 20th century. It shows. They spend a lot of time reinventing the wheel or competing with each other on who can do the most experimental moves when there's no rationale behind the choices they make. They're just doing it because no one's done it before, not because it adds to the meaning-making that the writing engages in. They want to be the avant-garde without knowing what preceded them. I take issue with that kind of approach and when reading your advice, responded to it in that way even while acknowledging it probably wasn't what you intended. I have plenty of friends who I think are fantastic writers and have gotten assorted accolades over the year and use language in interesting and fresh ways. There are some who, while less pyrotechnical in their technique and vocabulary, operate clearly within a tradition while still being in a contemporary mode and moment. There are other people I know who have similar accolades and degrees (even PhDs) but their writing is bloodless, or too bloody, or blatantly self-indulgent or what have you. There are those who are familiar with technique but abuse the same left and right. I went to a reading a year ago organized by acquaintances of mine who are decent people generally but more fiction-inclined and not particularly versed (here I am punning) in poetry. There were four readers in all. For every one of them, their favorite rhetorical device was anaphora and their favorite line length was Whitmanian. By reader three, it was all I could do to keep myself from crawling out the window and running screaming into the night. But to return to some hope of topicality here (and get over my own personal battles), my point is that there are many different schools still operating out there and different means of getting to whatever the endgame is. People find their audiences, small and large, eventually. The programs that I've gotten into over the years reflect the kind of process I was going through and what I wanted out of my work. I didn't get into plenty of other places. Other people who did get into those places could have easily applied to and been rejected by the schools I was accepted at. You can read x journals or y journals or no journals. You can view yourself as an inheritor of this tradition or that tradition or be some enfant terrible consciously making a mess of things. You can be a weird amalgam of various influences or you could be a riff off one particular influence whose legacy you're constantly coming to terms with. The writers that drive ME nuts have nonetheless found their loving supporters and I have people who are very angry about how I write even though I too have supporters and people who dig what I'm doing (some of whom aren't even family!) Reading predominantly contemporary work is one path. It's a particularly practical path in that it might get you some idea of where to publish individual pieces and find an already extant audience. It's not the only means of getting there.

While the rest of the advice is all right (it's important to not come across as crazy or combative in a personal statement!), there are many different paths to an MFA. The adcom could be looking for writing in the contemporary mode or they could not be. I've never subscribed to or submitted to any of those journals and my reading is about 90-95% dead people. I've done okay for myself and have met professors within the MFA system who have really loved my work. Follow what excites you, more than anything else. Trying to adapt to some prescribed idea of what a writer is or should be usually only leads to trouble in the long run.

I took the UIC offer in the end, but otherwise have nothing but nice things to say about Georgia, their program, and the people I interacted with down there, so anyone looking at this thread for next cycle, they have my endorsement and are probably easier to get into than UIC, which seems to only take one or perhaps two people per genre.

Some things worth mentioning from my time in and around various workshops... One is that every incoming MFA class is unique. The adcoms often go through the applications with the intent to balance it as much as they can. Thus, one of the challenges in the laboratory that is the workshop is learning how everyone starts to read each other. I was somewhat blessed in that, after some initial rough patches, my MFA class largely grew to appreciate each other's work and hung out, primarily with each other. The year ahead of us was talented but kept to themselves and the year behind, we found less that aesthetically excited us. Sometimes this can be a difference in adcoms as the faculties tend to cycle through groupings, although each institution will operate differently. For example, Iowa gets such a high volume of applications that the creative samples are screened through the current students and this can sometimes result in a more homogeneous class from year to year. While it's true that demographics have changed in Iowa over the years and that it's now more inclusive, there are competitive aspects to it that remain similar. There are TAships for all now, yes, but people are also competing for an increase in stipend and awards in their second year, which are still boons worth squabbling over. The other thing is that, as Iowa ostensibly attracts the best of the best, their students often wear their "best" labels on their sleeves, having been the alpha of all their previous workshops, and come ready to attack for stylistic deficiencies. I had an environment similar to this in my undergraduate program and my friends who came through Iowa, mostly women writers of color who are more reserved in nature, struggled at times with workshops that would verge on personal attack. All the worse if people smelled blood in the water and took a remark made by the workshop instructor as a signal to bite on to anything that sticks out. Partially for this reason, when my friends were at Iowa, even talk of publishing was discouraged. People were reading contemporary journals, but publishing was bête noire in the classroom and something to be talked about only in private. This can do a bit to stave off the green feelings that emerge in workshop, but you should be aware of, and bear in mind, that competition for fellowships and prizes on the outside can often come across as rather cliquey. You'll look up one morning to find a group you know who has multiple members shortlisted for something that you never even heard about because you weren't enough of an insider to know. There are certainly good things and more challenging things that come of a higher pressure environment. While some people can come across as overly dogmatic in their opinions on what constitutes good writing, they wouldn't be there if they weren't fairly intelligent writers/readers in the first place. Each individual has to learn what their threshold is and how to balance the criticism they receive with their creative vision as they had understood it. Be prepared for this and strive to be kind and approach the work on the merits of what it's trying to do and people will respond to it. You can't control how others react or their level of hostility, you can only do what you can for yourself and in the long term, people will notice if you're a good reader.

(laughs) yeah I'm in food service too and I happened to get both of my acceptances at the beginning of my "weekend." Still floating by the time I got to work two days later, but perhaps only an inch above the ground The decision isn't easy at all. I've done research, consulted outside sources I trust, talked to the DGS for both briefly, spent an hour chatting with the poetry leads for both schools in the past week, and am no closer to getting it all straightened out. I'm extremely impressed with both, don't think that I can make a wrong choice at all, but the fact remains that I will have to make a choice and it may come down to peripheral factors.

Congratulations on getting into FSU!

I've heard talk of some internal waitlist, but you may consider checking the status of your application online. Some people are getting notices in the mail right now telling them where they stand, but a lot of people seem to have figured it out just by logging in. Nervewracking though.

Not sure. I figured based off past research we were approaching the deadline and as I submitted my info, I saw a slew of other Chicago-based rejections. I thought I presented an interesting research concept, but if the committee isn't into the idea, it can't be helped. That I haven't had any formal teaching experience or many fellowships might've worked against me though; my application was basically high test scores, high BA/MFA grades from respected institutions, and a killer writing sample. I don't think anyone posting on here past or present appears to have a clear idea of what they're looking for.

Just got the official rejection, expect that others will be getting theirs soon enough as UChicago seems to be sending out a bunch of them this afternoon.

So, I'm a patient boy, but not all of the time. I decided to call them up today to help get my bearings on some things. The woman who answered was helpful, but seemed as if she had other things she'd rather be doing and so I didn't drop my own name or the fact that I'd been accepted into other PhDs or that Social Thought remains my #1. I did not ask them about the status of applications or when/whether decisions have gone out either, figuring that would be a lost cause. Here's what I did learn!: * There is not a "quota" so to speak regarding specializations. Multiple acceptances can be made within a single specialization. It comes down to the committee's decision on what to do with the applicants. * The specialization through which they receive the most applications is philosophy, by a good margin. Didn't ask for breakdowns elsewhere, but philosophy is definitely tops there. * I asked if things like Rhodes and Fullbright scholarships really mattered all that much as far as making the decision. This was the toughest question for her to answer, she said, because the application pools vary so much year to year and there are only around 125 applicants, so sometimes they get a few or more of those, sometimes they don't. There's no telling whether or not you'll be stacked up against an applicant with those kind of credentials. * Accepted applicants get flown out to the University for an introduction. My question as phrased was whether or not they did interviews based off a field of candidates once they narrowed it down, and so she clarified in her response that when the accepted applicants were brought in, it wasn't really a formal interview as such. Nevertheless, got the impression that that they didn't screen applicants in that way but rather made decisions based off the materials provided in the application. May this information be of some use to someone.

Sent 'em an e-mail late Thursday night inquiring about my application status. No reply as of yet. But then there's another program I've been waiting on an e-mail from since the 20th of February. Such seems to be the waitlist/rejection limbo.

I think that happens to most people. Funds and stamina run short eventually.

I've heard my share of awful David Shields stories as well, not going to lie about that. Bozzy, that surprises me, in that everyone I knew really seemed to respect him even though he wasn't writing as actively as the others. A few people cited his Writers on Writing lecture on mythos-minded thinking as a must hear, and I've had a few nice conversations with him over the years about aphorisms and the like as he too is a big James Richardson fan. Charles Johnson though, he was before my time, which I would guess meant that you were there in the era when Colleen McElroy was on poetry as well? And Heather might have been doing any number of visiting stints elsewhere as she was wont to do. Again, no insight there, but the people I worked with in my not-too-long ago tenure were lovely. I think that UW's program has generally been more about poetry than prose though. We all remember that seminal era of Roethke and Hugo and Wright and Kizer, but I've never heard of anything equivalent on the other side.

I did my BA at Columbia. It's a boon being close to NYC publishing happenings, but it's pay to play and the NYC scene can be incestuous at some times, an echo chamber at others. Nevertheless, I can see the practical reasons for it being given a boost. As far as actual perception by published writers, you're right about there being a substantial difference between P&W rankings and actual esteem. That said, you can end up in situations where a lower ranking can become a self-fulfilling prophecy, not because the instruction changes but because the applicant pools do. I definitely witnessed some of the fallout from those low rankings, though there remained some legitimately talented folks in the cohort at all times.

I only have the top 50 from 2012 on hand, but I think it's bullshit, if you'll excuse me for saying so. For one thing, as I remember the vote tabulation process, they were surveying applicants not people who had been in a program. The fact is, a lot of the undergraduate writers I have known have been, let's say, excessively confident in their skills and abilities. They think themselves as largely finished products who just need a couple of years to get a book together. From those bases and by that criteria, you're going to necessarily skew towards prioritizing funding packages over the quality of instruction and who's teaching there. I had a number of friends and even past mentors who went through the Iowa program. They've described it as a pressure cooker environment, and few have had glowing things to say about the faculty. A number of them thought the professors sexist or dismissive of their work and some of the feedback I've heard relayed by them was rather insulting. I applied there for poetry and didn't get in. I applied there because I really and honestly dig James Galvin's work. I would apply there again knowing what I know now and given what I know because, hey, why the hell not? I came in unfunded at a NT50, survived on resident tuition and living at home. I never did get full funding, for reasons outside of my control and not really worth going into, but all throughout the faculty was extremely supportive of me, very much apologetic about the position I had been put in (with a few of them claiming that it was an "embarrassment" that someone like me would go unfunded), and gave their all. I got some responses on my critical and creative theses at three or four in the morning the following day from Heather. And in the end, while I left with a bit of debt, I had a number of great advocates in the literary world who really helped encourage me and develop my craft through their own unique insights, providing me some excellent advice that I reflect back on to this day. Funding situations can be terrible. I legitimately lucked out by having grown up in the state and never changed legal residency when I got my BA. Others weren't so fortunate and they like me had to grind their way though food service and retail jobs. It was a real bummer for all of us. But I don't think there's one among us who regrets the quality of instruction that we received, that thinks that we should have done better elsewhere. While having some extra cash to live off of is certainly nice (likewise, time to write), if you didn't get much out of the program otherwise, who cares?

It's aggravating to not knowing one way or the other. Social Thought was my #1 program and I thought I stood a decent chance, that is up until the point when the application started asking me things like whether or not I had ever been a Rhodes scholar or a Fullbright. Thanks for the update, though. I don't know if it's typical for programs to be this cagey, but I'm in a PhD group on FB where some people have heard acceptances or waitlists from a program and others have applied, heard nothing, and continue to hear nothing. It makes me wonder if it's policy for programs to keep a particularly long waitlist "just in case."