Branwen daughter of Llyr

Well, you seem to be dissing academia on a regular basis (conferences are petty and boring, calling it "all powerful overlord," and quoting a writer who hated academia with a passion while saying that "Just a friendly reminder that most of the great writers didn't attend Ivy League schools, let alone get paid by them." to a group of individuals who haven't expressed much interest in being fiction writers, and are mostly interested in being scholars).

I'm usually quite good at reading tone and voice - and most of your comments have been... well... very anti-academia. Perhaps you haven't stated it in so many words, but it's fairly implicit in just about everything you write.

Well, you seem to be dissing academia on a regular basis (conferences are petty and boring, calling it "all powerful overlord," and quoting a writer who hated academia with a passion while saying that "Just a friendly reminder that most of the great writers didn't attend Ivy League schools, let alone get paid by them." to a group of individuals who haven't expressed much interest in being fiction writers, and are mostly interested in being scholars).

I'm usually quite good at reading tone and voice - and most of your comments have been... well... very anti-academia. Perhaps you haven't stated it in so many words, but it's fairly implicit in just about everything you write.

Well, you seem to be dissing academia on a regular basis (conferences are petty and boring, calling it "all powerful overlord," and quoting a writer who hated academia with a passion while saying that "Just a friendly reminder that most of the great writers didn't attend Ivy League schools, let alone get paid by them." to a group of individuals who haven't expressed much interest in being fiction writers, and are mostly interested in being scholars).

I'm usually quite good at reading tone and voice - and most of your comments have been... well... very anti-academia. Perhaps you haven't stated it in so many words, but it's fairly implicit in just about everything you write.

Hi there! I put in seven applications two years ago and got straight rejections (with one a waitlist and then rejection). This season has been much more successful - I mean, it's not like I've gotten into every school I wanted, but I've gotten into two I'm really excited about (one of which rejected me last time), waitlisted at another sort of dream program (where I was also rejected last time) and five haven't notified.

One big thing I did before was post a question to this forum, very much like the one you just posted! I was soliciting advice, putting out theories about why I did poorly to be either confirmed or refuted. I didn't find any grad school communities until after my first round of applications, and I really attribute a lot of my success to the advice I've gotten. I was so completely overwhelmed by some of the responses I got from very knowledgable people willing to offer support and extensive, nuanced advice to a stranger on the internet. These forums and others have been completely invaluable, and also make you feel warm and fuzzy about the potential of collegiality. After that first post, I suddenly felt I had direction. Obviously, you have to do the work, and be open to the fact that it might involve real work, but people here can tell you what that work is. So I'll tell you what I did, in accordance with the advice I got:

I think the big thing for me was my statement of purpose. But it wasn't just a matter of writing a better essay, but the focus and perspective I've gained in the two years that made it into the essay. Two years ago, I couldn't have written the SoP I wrote this year. Not that it was amazing, but just that it had clarity, consistency, and showed that I had specific things I wanted to research. I figured out more about exactly what I wanted to study, the direction of my research. I read up a bit on the work being done in my subfield so I'm aware of general directions people are taking it in, which I started doing by browsing journals related to my subfield, and scanning through a few books that seemed to reappear. I read other successful SoPs, both on this and related communities, as well as ones I solicited from friends in grad school. That was huge in figuring out possible ways to structure, what to include, what the goals should be.

I had retaken the GRE before my first round, and realized that was a ridiculous rookie mistake. I had scores that were plenty good enough the first time, but I thought bringing them up to perfect would make the difference (ah, the college admissions model). Well, my resulting pretty "perfect" scores got me rejected everywhere, and as I used the same scores this time around with very different results, I know that's not what it's about. Unless you're around or below 600 Verbal, don't waste your time/money.

I had planned to really work on my writing sample, because I was really worried it was too much of a close reading and didn't have enough theory. I did read some theory I thought would be relevant and worked it in, though it wasn't quite the overhaul I expected (I travelled this summer and just didn't have the time - and I'm a high school English teacher). I think what I did manage to do, though, made it a stronger sample.

I applied a litte more broadly, less married to the US News list (all my first-round schools were in the top 20, whereas this time they ranged from 1 to 50). I went for "fit" - which schools are strong in your subfield? I did my research in terms of fit this time, not just applying to schools and then scrounging up reasons (forcing faculty interest alignment, etc.), but really going through some schools I hadn't thought of before and looking closely. I ended up applying to half of the same schools, but I had half new, and one is an acceptance I am very seriously considering. Ask your advisors about what schools, based on your interests, they would recommend, and really look into it.

I did contact people at my three top choices - so far, I'm waitlisted at one, rejected at another, and haven't heard from the third. So I'm not sure how important that is, except that at one of them (where I'm waitlisted), I've learned a lot about the program and had some lovely conversations, which is valuable in and of itself.

Hope that helps - just a few basic things, I know. But really, it looks like your'e doing the right thing by seeking out people who have gained some insight! I hope it works out for you this round (there really is still hope!) but if not, good luck!!

Zoo,

If you hate it so much, why go through it? I'm asking seriously.

We want to be scholars. I don't see anything wrong with that. If you don't want to be a scholar, and you want to be the next JD Salinger (nothing wrong with that, seriously, I love his work), why even bother thinking about grad school?

Zoo,

If you hate it so much, why go through it? I'm asking seriously.

We want to be scholars. I don't see anything wrong with that. If you don't want to be a scholar, and you want to be the next JD Salinger (nothing wrong with that, seriously, I love his work), why even bother thinking about grad school?

Zoo,

If you hate it so much, why go through it? I'm asking seriously.

We want to be scholars. I don't see anything wrong with that. If you don't want to be a scholar, and you want to be the next JD Salinger (nothing wrong with that, seriously, I love his work), why even bother thinking about grad school?

One sunny day, a rabbit came out of her hole in the ground to enjoy the fine weather. The day was so nice that she became careless and a fox snuck up behind her and caught her.

"I am going to eat you for lunch!" said the fox. "Wait!" replied the rabbit," You should at least wait a few days."

"Oh yeah? Why should I wait?"

"Well, I am just finishing my dissertation on 'The Superiority of Rabbits over Foxes and Wolves.'"

"Are you crazy? I should eat you right now! Everyone knows that a fox will always win over a rabbit."

"Not according to my research. If you like, you can come into my hole and read it for yourself. If you are not convinced, you can go ahead and eat me for lunch."

"You really are crazy!" said the fox, but since the fox was curious and had nothing to lose, it went into the hole with the rabbit.

The fox never came out.

A few days later, the rabbit was again taking a break from writing when a wolf came out of the bushes and was ready to set upon her.

"Wait!" yelled the rabbit," You can't eat me right now."

"And why might that be, my furry appetizer?" said the wolf.

"I am almost finished with my dissertation on 'The Superiority of Rabbits over Foxes and Wolves.'"

The wolf laughed so hard he almost let go of the rabbit. "Maybe I shouldn't eat you--you really are sick in the head! You might have something contagious."

"Come and read it for yourself, you can eat me afterwards if you disagree with my conclusions."

So the wolf went down into the rabbit's hole...and never came out.

The rabbit finished her dissertation and was out celebrating in the local lettuce patch.

Another rabbit came along and asked, "What's up? You seem very happy."

"Yup, I just finished my dissertation."

"Congratulations! What's it about?"

"'The Superiority of Rabbits over Foxes and Wolves.'"

"No way! That can't be right."

"Oh, but it is. Come and read it for yourself."

So the two rabbits went down into the rabbit hole. As they entered, the friend saw the typical graduate abode. A computer with the controversial work was in one corner surrounded by discarded papers. And on one side of the room there was a pile of fox bones, while on the other side there was a pile of wolf bones. And in the center, there was a large, well-fed lion.

The moral of the story:

The title of your dissertation doesn't matter. The subject doesn't matter. The research doesn't matter. All that matters is who your advisor is.

(from http://www.chat.carleton.ca/~jnoakes/grad.html, where you'll find many other gems)

Zoo,

If you hate it so much, why go through it? I'm asking seriously.

We want to be scholars. I don't see anything wrong with that. If you don't want to be a scholar, and you want to be the next JD Salinger (nothing wrong with that, seriously, I love his work), why even bother thinking about grad school?

What?? Are two people on this forum actually appreciating my little quotation and not seizing it as an opportunity to spout their deadly serious opinions on "The Academy," or "academe," or whatever the hell it is they call their all-powerful overlord?

Tagging on to what Branwen and hadunc said, you seem to be under the impression that when you write a paper on a book, it is devoid of any sort of theoretical bent. You also say you want to write what's "true" about a work. But how do you decide what's true? You do it based on certain theoretical assumptions (a methodology), whether you're aware of them or not. At the undergrad level, you don't really have to have a full comprehension of those assumptions, but at the grad level, and certainly as an academic, you're expected to be aware of the framework you're using, the implications of that framework, and use that methodology self-consciously. Your response sort of lumps together the work being done as "contemporary," and imply that everyone is sort of conforming to what's trendy, but there are a myriad of different frameworks and methodologies people are working with. And everyone is trying to do something unique! So no, you wouldn't get arrested for doing something different, but you also won't get hired (or published) if you're completely unaware of what framework you're using. As a concrete example, say you write about the theme of black and white in Heart of Darkness. In high-level work you can't stop at a basic close reading of how Conrad uses black and white - that's the first step, but you have to say why it matters, what you're saying about that fact. Are you saying it reflects certain racial constructs? Then you should really be aware of postcolonial and racial theory. Are you saying his dichotomies bleed into each other and reverse, undermining the concept of perceptual and linguistic dichotomy? You'd better know something about structuralist and post-structuralist theory. In both cases, you also ought to be aware of what others have said about the issue. Obviously a simplistic example, but you get the idea. I know you're using conferences just as an example, but I still find it troubling that you seem to be uninterested in different perspectives on literature. I mean, that's what studying literature is. You use Derrida and Foucault as examples of people that wouldn't have been criticized for not going to conferences, but those were people EXTREMELY aware of the intellectual legacy they came out of and were then pushing against, and they couldn't have done the work they did without understanding what others were saying and had said, which is basically what conferences (and grad schools/criticism/theory!) are about. But you can't break the rules if you don't know them. If you're not interested in what others have to say about literature, why should anyone be interested in what you have to say?

I can't believe I'm about to post this, because I do think the guy who wrote it is basically a jerk, but I am nevertheless glad I read it. I think his conclusions are totally extreme, but his premises are true. Grad school, especially a Ph.D. program, isn't something you give a try just because you were good at English and liked it in undergrad, because it is a huge risk. I mean, I would say a whole lot of us were "department darlings" in undergrad, and probably a good majority of English Ph.D. applicants were straight-A English students (or close), but nevertheless there's still a 2-10% acceptance rate at most of these programs, even with an almost laughably impressive applicant pool. So that's not the criteria anyone should used to decide to do it. What you do in undergrad is not the same as what you do in grad school/academia. Especially if you're not particularly interested in publishing scholarly articles, it'll be basically impossible to find TT jobs on the other end. I'm not saying I agree with this dude, because I don't (obviously - I'm single, not wealthy, and not well-connected, yet I'm going to grad school in the humanities), but I do think it's important to be aware of what you're getting yourself into:

http://chronicle.com/article/Graduate-School-in-the-Huma/44846/

It's a scary article, but I figure if grad school is really the right decision for you, this won't scare you off, and you know the risks going in.

Also, don't knock high school teaching! There are lots of truly wonderful (usually private) schools where you'd be working with very high-level students of literature - some of my students inspire and astound me, and make me think, every day. And those schools are always looking for smart, passionate people like yourself. It's not a lesser job or a less respectable way to make a living; it's just different. At the university level, though, you're expected to be a scholar as well, to engage with your fellow scholars' ideas and not just your own. Ask yourself if you want to do that. If you don't, don't do a Ph.D. with the goal of being a prof. Jobs are scarce and if you're not really committed to scholarship, you're setting yourself up for real unhappiness.

If you would have stated your opinion in the way you just did from the beginning, this would have been a completely different discussion.

However, your attitude was that conferences were "boring and petty" that criticism was "defunct" that people were "bored with literature."

Of course I don't want my work to be like anyone else's. I want it to be unique and MINE. But critical theory can help - sometimes an additional angle can give you some unexpected insights into a literary piece. And trust me, I'm not much of a fan of a lot of critical theory - I'm much more interested in personal interpretation, close reading, some narrative theory, and a whole lot of Jungian "myth" criticism. I also, belong to an "older" time, I adore Harold Bloom, and most of my papers from college aren't chock-filled with Fucault, or any other theorist for that matter (barring my honors thesis, which actually includes some critical theory regarding carnivalesque space, applied to children's literature).
However, I would NOT disparage the current theoretical community by calling it "boring and petty." As I stated, yes, some is mediocre, as in every profession. But I look forward to going to conferences and hearing other people's work, as well as presenting my own. I look forward to having other brilliant people try to punch holes through my arguments. I look forward to hearing a new critical approach that I might be able to apply to my own, unique work, and hopefully contribute to the general discussion.

Intellectual apparatus? I don't have any. I haven't gone to a conference in my entire life, nor published a paper. I graduated in 2001 with honors from a good program in a tier-3 school, and I was lucky enough to have profs that FORCED me to think critically about a piece rather than just gush about it. Searching for sub-text and "what the author means" is also criticism, remember. Figuring out cultural influences of the time, placing a literary piece in context, discussing how certain words were chosen to express an idea - all this is CRITICAL THINKING. It doesn't mean you have to "conform" to what other people are doing. Trust me - I have no intention of teaching my future students to read The Cantebury Tales in queer theory. Not my thing.
But to write a dissertation, you can't work in a vacuum of "text only". If you're not interested in deconstruction, structuralism, queer, gender, marxist, or any of those, work with reader response. work with new criticism. work with new historicism. Support your argument by using other critical thinkers' ideas as well, and how they can apply to the text you are working on.

But to reiterate - if you had written about things the way you did in the above post from the beginning, I doubt you would have been jumped at so strongly. It's not about everyone doing the same thing - it is, however, about respecting each other as a community of thinkers, and respecting other people's approaches. After all, there is no one truth regarding literature (as you yourself stated), and I've often said that I can prove that Shakespeare was anti-semetic as well as proving that he loved Jews from The Merchant of Venice.

And if you don't want to publish, don't . however, this means you'll NEVER be a full prof. Unfortunately, those are the rules of the game.

Returning to the ORIGINAL post:

Listen, I'm not an expert on this. I don't claim to be, and I don't particularly WANT to be.
Now that the disclaimer is out of the way:

Although an English dept may accept you despite low GRE's (and everyone agrees that for the top-twenty, scoring in the 90th percentile and above is recommended, if above 700V - you've definitely crossed the slushpile bar) due to a stellar GPA, writing sample, SOP, and LORs, you MIGHT have problems with fellowships / TAships. Many universities HAVE to take into account the total GRE score (as strokeofmidnight said before me) to approve funding for candidates. And since (unfortunately or not, not up to me to say), a lot of funding options depend on GRE scores. And since Universities are scrambling for fellowship money, they want to present the most attractive candidates (this is quoted directly from my father, a tenured prof at Brown - although not in the Humanities - but funding is funding is funding, just about anywhere). If you're applying to top-twenty programs, the competition this year is SO tough, and SO many qualified, amazingly smart applicants are in the pool - well, I don't know. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

I applied this year with an initial score of 600V / 560Q. I realized very quickly that I most likely WON'T get in to the 4 programs I applied to. Especially since I totally missed the november subject GRE (I decided to apply too late to register for it). So I went and did the silly test again, and registered for the April subject test. I improved scores significantly, and will be applying again next year, confident that at least my app won't be thrown away in the initial sorting.

I recommend that you do the same. The GRE, as crappy as it is, is NOT impossible to prepare for. My scores this time around were much higher than the first time, with only 4 weeks of studying, and were also MUCH higher than the GRE I took right out of college.
If you want above a 700 in the verbal (NOT impossible), crack down and study vocab. READ. LOADS. Read The Economist, Scientific American, read books with advanced vocabulary that uses obscure meanings. Take your dictionary EVERYWHERE. Get the prep books.

To improve the math - hrm - I'd say go back and practice.

However - DO NOT rely on just good GRE scores to get in. Make sure your writing sample and SOP are superb and focused. Make sure your recommendations are excellent.

Good luck!!

A few things -

You are banking on the wrong idea for university level teaching. It may be enough to teach high-school - teaching students to appreciate literature is wonderful, indeed. But teaching college level is about much more than that - teaching students to think and write critically about literature. So they may LOVE Gullievers Travels, but can they analyze it? can the student think critically about it and apply critical methodology to it?

Personally the appreciation of literature is something completely different than the study of literature. And I wouldn't lose either. Critical work is important, since it is part of the global discussion on literary topics. If you don't enjoy the theory part - don't pursue a PhD. seriously. You can't get away with just close reading in graduate school. And even in your own way, you ARE pursuing criticism - of the "reader response" variety.

Conferences are wonderful opportunities to hear other people's research and ideas (opportunities I wish I currently had the privilege to attend), to get that lightblub over your head saying "oh my god, I can actually use this in my own work," or "I never thought of this before." And of course there is mediocre work. There is mediocre work in every single field. We're lucky in English, however, that often, that mediocre work provides a huge amount of discussion and development - take this as an example: 17th and 18th century adaptations of Shakespeare's plays were often undoubtedly mediocre. However, due to those adaptations, we NEVER lost Shakespeare as a culture! His work wasn't lost and then discovered. And these adaptations also create a wealth of scholarship in themselves - how does a particular adaptation reflect on the attitudes and social mores of the time? Why did this writer change this to that or that to this? How is this culturally significant?

You're treating literature as existing in a vacum, when it doesn't. Literature is connected to local culture, history, readership, psychology, conventions, innovations, and just about everything else. Yes, the enjoyment of literature is paramount to those of us who wish to spend our lives exploring it at a deep level and exchanging ideas with other scholars. But if I only wanted to teach high-school level English and the appreciation of literature (which is a wonderful thing), I would go get my MAT and teach at a good high-school with a progressive English program.

I most DEFINITELY would NOT pursue a PhD.

Returning to the ORIGINAL post:

Listen, I'm not an expert on this. I don't claim to be, and I don't particularly WANT to be.
Now that the disclaimer is out of the way:

Although an English dept may accept you despite low GRE's (and everyone agrees that for the top-twenty, scoring in the 90th percentile and above is recommended, if above 700V - you've definitely crossed the slushpile bar) due to a stellar GPA, writing sample, SOP, and LORs, you MIGHT have problems with fellowships / TAships. Many universities HAVE to take into account the total GRE score (as strokeofmidnight said before me) to approve funding for candidates. And since (unfortunately or not, not up to me to say), a lot of funding options depend on GRE scores. And since Universities are scrambling for fellowship money, they want to present the most attractive candidates (this is quoted directly from my father, a tenured prof at Brown - although not in the Humanities - but funding is funding is funding, just about anywhere). If you're applying to top-twenty programs, the competition this year is SO tough, and SO many qualified, amazingly smart applicants are in the pool - well, I don't know. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

I applied this year with an initial score of 600V / 560Q. I realized very quickly that I most likely WON'T get in to the 4 programs I applied to. Especially since I totally missed the november subject GRE (I decided to apply too late to register for it). So I went and did the silly test again, and registered for the April subject test. I improved scores significantly, and will be applying again next year, confident that at least my app won't be thrown away in the initial sorting.

I recommend that you do the same. The GRE, as crappy as it is, is NOT impossible to prepare for. My scores this time around were much higher than the first time, with only 4 weeks of studying, and were also MUCH higher than the GRE I took right out of college.
If you want above a 700 in the verbal (NOT impossible), crack down and study vocab. READ. LOADS. Read The Economist, Scientific American, read books with advanced vocabulary that uses obscure meanings. Take your dictionary EVERYWHERE. Get the prep books.

To improve the math - hrm - I'd say go back and practice.

However - DO NOT rely on just good GRE scores to get in. Make sure your writing sample and SOP are superb and focused. Make sure your recommendations are excellent.

Good luck!!

A few things -

You are banking on the wrong idea for university level teaching. It may be enough to teach high-school - teaching students to appreciate literature is wonderful, indeed. But teaching college level is about much more than that - teaching students to think and write critically about literature. So they may LOVE Gullievers Travels, but can they analyze it? can the student think critically about it and apply critical methodology to it?

Personally the appreciation of literature is something completely different than the study of literature. And I wouldn't lose either. Critical work is important, since it is part of the global discussion on literary topics. If you don't enjoy the theory part - don't pursue a PhD. seriously. You can't get away with just close reading in graduate school. And even in your own way, you ARE pursuing criticism - of the "reader response" variety.

Conferences are wonderful opportunities to hear other people's research and ideas (opportunities I wish I currently had the privilege to attend), to get that lightblub over your head saying "oh my god, I can actually use this in my own work," or "I never thought of this before." And of course there is mediocre work. There is mediocre work in every single field. We're lucky in English, however, that often, that mediocre work provides a huge amount of discussion and development - take this as an example: 17th and 18th century adaptations of Shakespeare's plays were often undoubtedly mediocre. However, due to those adaptations, we NEVER lost Shakespeare as a culture! His work wasn't lost and then discovered. And these adaptations also create a wealth of scholarship in themselves - how does a particular adaptation reflect on the attitudes and social mores of the time? Why did this writer change this to that or that to this? How is this culturally significant?

You're treating literature as existing in a vacum, when it doesn't. Literature is connected to local culture, history, readership, psychology, conventions, innovations, and just about everything else. Yes, the enjoyment of literature is paramount to those of us who wish to spend our lives exploring it at a deep level and exchanging ideas with other scholars. But if I only wanted to teach high-school level English and the appreciation of literature (which is a wonderful thing), I would go get my MAT and teach at a good high-school with a progressive English program.

I most DEFINITELY would NOT pursue a PhD.

A few things -

You are banking on the wrong idea for university level teaching. It may be enough to teach high-school - teaching students to appreciate literature is wonderful, indeed. But teaching college level is about much more than that - teaching students to think and write critically about literature. So they may LOVE Gullievers Travels, but can they analyze it? can the student think critically about it and apply critical methodology to it?

Personally the appreciation of literature is something completely different than the study of literature. And I wouldn't lose either. Critical work is important, since it is part of the global discussion on literary topics. If you don't enjoy the theory part - don't pursue a PhD. seriously. You can't get away with just close reading in graduate school. And even in your own way, you ARE pursuing criticism - of the "reader response" variety.

Conferences are wonderful opportunities to hear other people's research and ideas (opportunities I wish I currently had the privilege to attend), to get that lightblub over your head saying "oh my god, I can actually use this in my own work," or "I never thought of this before." And of course there is mediocre work. There is mediocre work in every single field. We're lucky in English, however, that often, that mediocre work provides a huge amount of discussion and development - take this as an example: 17th and 18th century adaptations of Shakespeare's plays were often undoubtedly mediocre. However, due to those adaptations, we NEVER lost Shakespeare as a culture! His work wasn't lost and then discovered. And these adaptations also create a wealth of scholarship in themselves - how does a particular adaptation reflect on the attitudes and social mores of the time? Why did this writer change this to that or that to this? How is this culturally significant?

You're treating literature as existing in a vacum, when it doesn't. Literature is connected to local culture, history, readership, psychology, conventions, innovations, and just about everything else. Yes, the enjoyment of literature is paramount to those of us who wish to spend our lives exploring it at a deep level and exchanging ideas with other scholars. But if I only wanted to teach high-school level English and the appreciation of literature (which is a wonderful thing), I would go get my MAT and teach at a good high-school with a progressive English program.

I most DEFINITELY would NOT pursue a PhD.

I am indeed a medievalist (and not the only one wandering around gradcafe) - but a bit of an odd bird in the field (I'm super interested in the human need for fantasy in literature - starting in the Middle Ages, when most of these legends were first written down in some form or another - dragons, magic swords, fairies, heroic, god-like protagonists, etc. - specifically the Celtic stuff, and then crossing it with popular modern fantasy / children's lit). And I LOVE the dragonrider's of Pern series!! McCaffrey's been a favorite of mine since I was 10. My main problem currently is languages - being fluent in Hebrew and having some basic French does nothing for medieval lit - but I'm sure I can overcome it (Latin class here I come...). Also very interested in learning Welsh, but I may have to go to the UK for that...

So welcome, medievalist!! As for myself, I'm keeping massively busy by checking one of my student's application essays to college, translating a 9,600 word user manual, and applying for various additional jobs so I can save money (This is all when not chain smoking and watching Monty Python or reading novels like other ppl eat popcorn).

Oh boy - have we touched a nerve??

For the next round I'm probably applying to appx 10 schools (give or take a few) - but all will have strong medieval departments and at least ONE prof that can work with me on contemporary fantasy / children's lit. I doubt I'll end up with only one advisor, I'll probably need a couple, or even three, since I want to incorporate Narrative theory, "fabulist" psych theory, and incorporate two time periods. Since the app round this year was so hurried for me, I didn't really have time to research schools and funding, I wasn't totally focused on my field (as I'm becoming now, a lot due to gradcafe, btw), and of course I would go to ANY program that accepted me this year (you don't turn down Yale, Cornell, or UVA), but it looks like there are better fits for me out there (barring Cornell, which is perfect).
UNC as a safety school?? I don't know who's applying to UNC as a safety school - it's so hard to get in, especially if you're out of state.

I will agree with others writing before me that it's a bit of a generalization to say that anyone that applied to 8+ schools is just fishing. I know there are some, but everyone I've talked to here, even when applying to quite a few schools, chose the schools for fit - of course some were a better fit than others, but in this economy, you have to be just a tad flexible. Let's put it this way - if by some miracle Yale / Brown decides they want me this year, you think I'm going to bitch about the small medieval concentration? Nope. I'll move my focus to "fairies in the Renaissance" concentrate a bit more on early modern vs. contemporary fantasy / children's lit, and work with what I have (and hope that I get to work with Harold Bloom).

I suppose all we can do is trust the adcoms to see through the "i don't know what i want to do yet" applications, and reject ppl that aren't a good fit. From what I've seen on the boards, it actually happens quite often - a lot of the ppl write in their comments "oh well, it wasn't a very good fit".

And yes, UNC is most definitely on my long list of next year, as are several other programs.

I wrote up an exhaustive--and exhausting--list of questions before my visit last year and am pasting it below. Keep in mind that encoded within these questions are assumptions and preferences that are likely specific to me and what I was looking for. Also, though I asked many of these questions during my visits, I also found that, in the scheme of things, most of these questions--or, I should say, most of the answers--didn't really matter in my decision-making process. In much the same way that stats tell you something, but not necessarily something useful, about what programs are looking for and what your fellow applicants are like, these questions often tell you structural things about a department but not what it actually feels like to be there. Everyone's mileage will vary, of course, but I found myself not caring if, say, prelims were written or oral (though I had a preference) if everything else about the program was appealing. In the end, if it's a program you love, you'll jump through whatever hoops it presents. I highly recommend visiting schools, as there were programs at which my instinctive reaction told me everything I needed to know after about 5 minutes of being there. Additionally, visiting schools lets you make contact with people who will be important to your work regardless if you end up working with them directly. Good luck! It's an exciting, if unnerving time, and as difficult as it was last year to weigh the options, I found myself missing the sense of possibility after I had made a decision that I was (and am) very happy with.


-PLACES TO STUDY AND WORK
-Where do most people do their writing and reading?
-What study spaces are available? Do students get a carrel? Do those who teach get or share an office?

-LIBRARY
-What is the library system like? Are the stacks open or closed?
-What are the library hours?
-Are there specialized archives/primary sources that would be useful to my research?
-Are there specialist librarians who can help me with my research?

-FACULTY
-Are the faculty members I want to work with accepting new students? Are any of those faculty members due for a sabbatical any time soon?
-Are professors willing to engage you on a personal level rather than just talking about your work?
-Are there any new professors the department is hiring in areas that align with my interests?
-Students’ relationships with their professors – are they primarily professional, or are they social as well?

-FUNDING
-Is funding competitive? If so, do students feel a distinction between those who have received more generous funding and those who haven’t?
-How does funding break down among the cohort? i.e., how many people receive fellowships?
-How, if you don’t have much savings, do you make enough money to live comfortably?
-Are there external fellowships one can apply to? If so, what is available? Does the program help you apply for these fellowships? How does receiving an external fellowship affect internal funding?
-If people need more than five/six years to finish, what funding resources are available? (For instance, Columbia can give you an additional 2-year teaching appointment.)
-Do you provide funding for conferences or research trips?
-How often is funding disbursed? (i.e., do you get paid monthly or do you have to stretch a sum over a longer period of time?)

-COHORT
-Do students get along with each other? Is the feeling of the program more collaborative than competitive?
-Do students in different years of the program collaborate with each other, or are individual cohorts cliquey?
-How many offers are given out, and what is the target number of members for an entering class?
-Ages/marital status of people in the cohort – do most people tend to be married with families? Are there younger people? Single people? What sense do you have of how the graduate students interact with each other socially?
-Do people seem happy? If they’re stressed, is it because they’re busy or is it because they’re anxious/depressed/cynical/disillusioned?
-Is the grad secretary/program administrator nice?
-What is the typical time to completion? What are the factors that slow down or speed up that time?
-I’ve read that there are two kinds of attrition: “good” attrition, in which people realize that the program, or graduate study, isn’t right for them and leave early on, and “bad” attrition, in which people don’t finish the dissertation. What can you tell me about the rates of each, and of the reasons why people have chosen to leave the program?

-JOB MARKET/PROFESSIONALIZATION
-What is the placement rate? How many of those jobs are tenure-track?
-What are examples of institutions in which people in my field have been placed?
-How does the department prepare you for the job search? Are there mock interviews and mock job talks?
-Are the people helping you navigate the job search people who have recently gone through the process themselves?
-If you don’t get placed, is there anything the department can do for you? (e.g., can you stay an extra year?)
-How does the department prepare you for and help you attain conference presentations and publications?

-SUMMER WORK
-What is encouraged/required?
-If there separate funding/is the year-round funding enough to live on during the summer?
-Do people find themselves needing to get outside work during the summer in order to have enough money?
-Am I expected to stay in town in the summer, and what happens if I don’t?

-LANGUAGE REQUIREMENT
-What is done to help people who don’t have language proficiency attain it? Does the university provide funding?
-What is the requirement, and by when do you have to meet it?
-Given my research interests, what languages should I study?
-When do you recommend doing the work necessary to fulfill the language requirement? (i.e., summer before first year, summer after first year, while taking classes, etc.)

-LOCATION REQUIREMENTS
-How long are students required to be in residence?
-How many students stay in the location for the duration of the program? (i.e., how many dissertate in residence?)
-How is funding affected if you don’t stay?

-Incompletes on papers at the end of the term: What is the policy, how many students take them, and how does this affect progress through the program?

-TEACHING
-What sort of training is provided?
-What types of courses do people teach?
-Does teaching entail serving as a grader? Serving as a TA? Developing and teaching a section of comp?
-How are students placed as TAs? Is there choice about what classes you teach and which professors you work with? Do classes correspond to your field?
-How many courses do you teach per semester/year?
-How many students are in your classes?
-How does the school see teaching as fitting in with the other responsibilities/requirements of graduate study?
-How do students balance teaching with their own work?
-Is the department more concerned with training you as a teacher/professor or with having cheap labor to teach their classes?
-How, if at all, does the economic downturn affect teaching load/class sizes?
-What are the students like? Can I sit in on a course a TA teaches to get a sense of them?

-METHODOLOGY
-Is a theory course required?
-What methodology do most people use?
-Where, methodologically, do you see the department – and the discipline – heading?
-Is interdisciplinarity encouraged, and what sorts of collaboration have students undertaken?

-Typical graduate class and seminar sizes

-What should I do to prepare over the summer?

-Ask people I know: What are the questions – both about the program itself and about the location – I should ask that will most help me get a feel for whether this is the right program for me?

-Ask people I know: What do you wish you knew or wish you had asked before choosing a program?

-Is the school on the semester or the quarter system, and how does that affect classes/teaching/requirements?

-What is the course load for each semester, and how many courses are required?

-What kind of support is provided while writing the dissertation? I worry about the isolation and anxiety of writing such a big project. What does the program do to help you break the dissertation down into manageable pieces, and to make the experience less isolating?

-What do writing assignments look like in classes? Do they differ based on the type/level of class and/or based on whether you intend to specialize in the field?

-Ask professors: what have you been working on lately?

-Ask professors: What is your approach to mentoring and advising graduate students?

-How long are class meetings?

-How often do professors teach graduate courses?

-Are course schedules available for future semesters (10-11, etc.)?

-Can I see the grad student handbook? Are there any other departmental documents – such as reports on the program prepared for accreditation – that I can see?


-QUALITY OF LIFE
-Prices – how does the cost of gas, milk, cereal, etc. compare to other places I've lived in?
-Cost and quality of typical one-bedroom apartment.
-What does the university do to provide you with or help you find housing?
-When (i.e., what month) do people start looking for an apartment for the fall, and where do they look?
-Is it easy to find a summer subletter?
-How close to campus can—and should—one live?
-What grocery stores are there in town?
-How late are cafes, bookstores, malls, restaurants typically open?
-What do people do to make extra money?
-Does the town have more of a driving or a walking culture? What is parking like near campus (availability, ease, cost)?
-Where do most English grad students live? Most other grad students? Most professors? Where is the student ghetto? Do most students live near each other, or are they spread out far and wide?
-How far does the stipend go in this location?

Since none of the schools I've applied to have even started sending people emails (good or bad), I've found that my coping mechanisms with the horrifying wait for rejections are becoming more and more bizarre by the day...

Here is a choice sample:

I've embarked on yet another Monty Python's Flying Circus marathon. I find myself wishing I had all my Discworld novels back. I grab my dog and hug her for absolutely no reason, and then pull her floppy ears. I become overly engaged with my grumpy cat in a battle of wits re his not eating dry food (i.e. telling him every morning "Mommy is poor, so eat your crunchies, I can't afford to buy you wet food!). I find myself wishing I could find that wardrobe to Narnia (yes, I've reverted to the ripe old age of seven). My coffee and cigarette consumption has risen to alarming highs. I faithfully report to my mother everything I read on this forum. I rejoiced when American Idol auditions started airing. Watching all those terrible singers made me feel better about myself (at least I'm not that deluded). I obsessively research schools and programs for next year's applications. I fantasize about leaving everything and going to South America to save Jaguars. Please share yours, so I don't feel like the only headcase in the world!!

Trust me, you guys, I know how you feel.
BUT - there are ways around it. Have you thought about teaching? A lot of private schools are willing to take people straight out of their BA to teach in their field. It can also help on your apps for next year. I know the economy is tough... but we're smart people (after all, we're applying to grad school!!) and should be able to work out a plan B. Teach English overseas, sign up and do work with Non-Profits. And even if you ARE relegated to working minimum wage, find other stuff that you can volunteer for in the area. Hey - why not try and sell an Ecology Education seminar at the schools in your local area? It's a hot topic, they may appreciate it! Also - take some classes that can help you fill in the gaps you need for grad school, even if part-time and in a non-grad track. It'll keep your mind sharp, and it may open up some unexplored opportunities.

The important thing is to try and be as positive as possible. The economy isn't much better in Israel, and I've been unemployed for a year and a half barring some freelance work... only now do I have any proper leads for a Tech writing job, and meanwhile I AM working at a minimum wage crap job, and still I know that somehow I'll find what to do until next year. I decided it's even a good thing, since meanwhile I can take Latin classes and beef up my languages.

...please, please know that it is not the end of the world even if that does happen.

I am the who everyone thought would get in the first time and didn't after being wait listed at two programs. I got a job in my field and reapplied 2 years later, and same deal - wait list but no acceptance. It was crushing. I was mortified that I'd had to ask my mentors for letters twice and still hadn't gotten in. My family was supportive but obviously shared my disappointment. It sucked, I wanted to crawl in a hole and die for a few weeks after, but I picked myself up eventually and moved on.

I worked on publishing data. I was able to expand my skill set at my job, and pick up another mentor in the process. I applied again, this time to three times as many programs, of course spending three times as much money. I had to get special permission from one program to apply for a third time which made me feel like a big loser. I braced myself for not getting in anywhere and possibly changing careers.

Yesterday one of my programs emailed me. As I read the subject line my stomach dropped: my first rejection, here we go again.

And I was wrong. It was an acceptance with full funding from a school I'd visited and loved.

I got to do the jumping around screaming happy dance and got to hear how excited my parents were when I called to let them know. And I've gotten to re live the excitement every time I tell another co worker, friend, or family member *especially* the ones who know my history and how hard I've worked.

And the amount of satisfaction and relief I've felt in the past 36 hours outweighs the three YEARS where I was either applying or in between application periods, wondering if I was ever going to make it in my field. Wondering why I had such crap luck, applying last year as the economy fell apart, constantly wait listed but never chosen.

So whatever happens for you this year...if it's your first, second, third, fourth round or greater, just remember that it does not make you a loser, it is not a reason to give up, and if you keep at it it WILL happen for you.

Since none of the schools I've applied to have even started sending people emails (good or bad), I've found that my coping mechanisms with the horrifying wait for rejections are becoming more and more bizarre by the day...

Here is a choice sample:

I've embarked on yet another Monty Python's Flying Circus marathon. I find myself wishing I had all my Discworld novels back. I grab my dog and hug her for absolutely no reason, and then pull her floppy ears. I become overly engaged with my grumpy cat in a battle of wits re his not eating dry food (i.e. telling him every morning "Mommy is poor, so eat your crunchies, I can't afford to buy you wet food!). I find myself wishing I could find that wardrobe to Narnia (yes, I've reverted to the ripe old age of seven). My coffee and cigarette consumption has risen to alarming highs. I faithfully report to my mother everything I read on this forum. I rejoiced when American Idol auditions started airing. Watching all those terrible singers made me feel better about myself (at least I'm not that deluded). I obsessively research schools and programs for next year's applications. I fantasize about leaving everything and going to South America to save Jaguars. Please share yours, so I don't feel like the only headcase in the world!!

How about a Harry Potter style "Tri-Grad Championship?"

After all, I'm sure most of us would rather face a flaming mad, psychotic Hungarian Horntail than take the GRE's again....