Historiogaffe

Is this related to graduate English programs? It's a bit presumptuous to approach a bunch of English specialists and expect them to help with your grammar. That said, we often can't resist, so: the sentence would mean the same thing without the word "any."

I can't speak to that specialization; that said I've heard UBC is strong in it. (I asked my undergrad supervisor what grad students tend to come to our program for.) A friend of mine is going to Brown for pre-1945 U.S. The short answer is, searching for a program is a big stressor, made up for by the feeling of finding a program that looks like it would be a perfect fit. The way I've looked for programs—and it's time-intensive and feels a bit like stalking—is to comb through places looking through professor profiles. (And yes, "places" is as large and vague a a number as it sounds.) Since most programs have a "by specialization" listing, it's fairly easy. Look through everyone in that category and see if there are two, three, or more profs who make you go "Good LORD yes" and then take note of that university. A starting point will be, if you find them floating around, lists on these forums, Livejournal, those "top 15 programs in [x] specialization" sites... but then you have to look through them for your particular interest; the theoretical approach you like; etc. So, perhaps, try starting here: http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-humanities-schools/postbellum-american-literature-rankings It's not a very wide range in terms of tier, obviously, and many of the ones above #10 or so show up at the top of pretty much every list of specializations—but it's a starting point. For a more extensive and broader listing, try taking some cues from http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2011/subject-rankings/arts-humanities/english A more effective method: take note of recent scholarship you're fond of/irrationally in love with, and see where the profs who've written those pieces work. Also, see where those profs went for their respective PhDs.

Re-reviving this thread to ask for thoughts on the Medieval Studies MSt at Oxford. Obviously, you know, Oxford—but the website waxes laconic as far as details. Has anyone done it, heard about it, is anyone aspiring after it?

Yes! That they're all very competitive has me a little worried. I've been following other recc's as far as "good medieval lit faculty"—which tends to be this intimidating combination of high-tier and also high competitiveness for medieval, presumably, since they've come recommended. I'm thinking on York, Ohio State, Penn State, W Mich, and UBC but what they lack (or don't) in tier they make up for with general appeal to medievalists. Which is, I won't lie, pretty much what I'm looking for—strong medieval programs. Also thinking on NYU, Wisconsin-Madison, Notre Dame, and McGill... which doesn't help at all. That's why I'm hoping to narrow it down a LOT, eventually — making a couple of reaches seems fine, but half a dozen plus seems just plain presumptuous. (Edit: All this to say, I appreciate your unsolicited advice!)

So less unheard-of and more a slight faux-pas? That makes sense. Good to know UCs aren't quite in contract-breaking straits—thanks!

I'm not sure what the exact funding situation was. Apparently they've been giving "money" and then taking it away, but as you guess, I don't know what kind of funding that might be. Because it was a second-degree story by the time it reached me, I don't know if the person had been nominated for a fellowship, didn't get it, couldn't afford to go, and then was semi-disappointed/bitter at this other place (which, you know, okay...), or if it really was something as crazy as UCB outright reneging. Thanks for the advice—the two UC's really impress me, so I think I'll give it a shot. And ask some select questions!

As another aside, OP: have you checked out Indiana-Bloomington? They've got Patricia Ingham, who's written Sovereign Fantasies—which does poco on a slew of post-Conquest insular writing. What I read of it (I was writing about Geoffrey of Monmouth) was just great. Although it's of its time, having been written around... 2000, I think?, it looks from the website like Ingham's still interested in that approach. Bloomington also has Karma Lochrie, who's more into gender/sexuality and medieval studies, is, I think, something of a celebrity medievalist (I don't do much gender/sexuality), but also does stuff on medieval travel literature and cartography.

Hi everyone, I'll be applying to grad schools this year, and am hoping I might run some schools and questions by you folks. I'm interested in medieval insular literature and historiography, Anglo-Latin and vernacular; the history of rhetoric (and vice versa); and plagiarism/citation in contemporary and pre-modern literary theory. Here's what I have: UCLA Berkeley Columbia WashU UT-Austin Cornell Penn And considering, for Masters applications: Toronto, Oxford, York, St Andrews. Does anywhere else come to mind? There are a couple of profs in that mix who look really, really wonderful, or "fitting," and are assistant professors. Is an assistant professor is safely tenure-track? Or does their youthful vivacity mark them as newbies? The programs at UCLA and Berkeley each look fantastic. As well as great faculty, they both have interdisciplinary medieval studies support, as well as the UC Late Antiquity group. But the budget. A friend told me that a person or two in her cohort had received stipend/fellowship offers from Berkeley only to have them withdrawn. Is it that bad? Is the California system as a whole something one should steer clear of these days? Motley questions—I'd be grateful for answers to one or more. Thank you! Edited for ramble.

Yank, by Vancouver do you mean UBC? I'm doing my undergrad there, so if that's the place you mean I can put in a couple of cents.

I have dedicated today to providing anecdotal evidence on Grad Cafe discussion threads. Round two: I had never been much of a theory-head, but this past year I took a couple of theory courses. (Not wanting to become a theory-head, I nevertheless wanted to stop having NO theory in my head.) One was pretty hardcore: the prof gave me a bit of an "I pity you" look when she found out I hadn't done any theory prior. The same prof told us near the beginning of the course that, if we wanted to go into academia (she presumed we did as it was an honours seminar), we would have to choose a period to focus on. You need to choose a period in order to sell yourself on the job market. I imagine you need to be able to say, "I study [aspect of critical theory] in [temporal/geographical location]." That may be partly because, if/when you get a position, you'll need to do 100-level English courses... Anyway, a friend of mine was told the same thing by a professor at an Ivy. She's big on the Frankfurt School, but has also worked on early American lit, and the prof said, "Okay, early American literature is what you do." The Norton Anthology of Critical Theory should demonstrate exactly how broad it is to say "I want to do literary theory"; it reflects an above poster's point that literary theory starts with Plato. (And earlier, in Norton's anthology.) Fortunately, the anthology also lists its theorists according to theoretical focus (poco, gender studies, psychoanalysis, etc.) so you might want to give that a look.

Oops, yes. I mean UPenn.

Hello! Sorry, this is quite the late reply. For the first reason. I've ended up with a kind of mixed bag of rhetoric, medieval studies, and English programs. I do have a pedagogical angle to my interests, which I can hopefully sneak in/sell to a literary department. (Or into a medieval studies department under the ever-flexible label of medievalism.) Though wooing UT-Austin still lingers near the top of my list... And thanks to all who've replied—I'll prowl for specific profs.

Re: American programs that admit their own MA students From the looks of their student profiles, Penn seems open to admitting its MA students for PhDs. Several of them may have updated their profiles when they got their along-the-way MA — i.e., having been admitted into the PhD from the get-go — but that seems a little... affected. (My position: non-American applicant-to-be who would be mad to accept an unfunded MA offer at international student rates.) Edited for longwindedness.

For what it's worth, a friend of mine got into Michigan with a 0 on the math. (And a 600-something on the verbal.)

Hi all, I'm looking for graduate programs with a strong focus in the history of rhetoric, particularly the early history (Sophists to medievals). I'm not looking for rhetoric programs per se, though they would be ideal — and are partly why I'm asking here. I'd be grateful for any recommendations!

The PhD program at Waterloo (ON) has a pretty good placement rate, and their various MA programs give you an idea of what they're into: as well as literary, therre's in Rhetoric and Communication Design, and Experimental Digital Media.

I've heard fund-y things about Ohio State and Purdue.

I love that description of reading Derrida. Especially as I totally get it, except re: snake I'm more like Eve ("ooh an apple! – oh, whoops") than that guy in the Morte ("UGH A SNAKE CHOP CHOP DIE– oh, whoops"). I do feel like academia is turning me into a cheerful nihilist. I heard one theory behind Geoffrey's change from Myrddin to Merlin was because "Myrddin" sounded/read like a contemporary word for poop. Like "merde," maybe? I would kind of love it if that were the reasoning. "A Knight's Tale" was wonderful, and not only for the sexy Chaucer, who looked quite a bit trimmer than his surviving poetry would lead us to believe... That's interesting about Merlin being the extra-cultural conscience. In a way his occasional, unabashed naughtiness seems like another well-he's-Celtic thing – not subject to Christian moralism, but rather his own moral force (so he can do his, yeah I'll let you shag this lady, but you'll owe me one, schtick) – maybe related to the Wheel-of-Fortune/predestination conflicts in Arthurian lit, also dating back to Geoffrey? Or, I don't know if "conflict" is the right word – strangely (at least to us) unproblematized coexistence, in some cases. I'm writing* on Tennyson at the moment** and how he idealizes the Arthurian past in terms of orality vs./pre- literacy; noblesse and morality are kind of spontaneous things (he would think, though Geoffrey and Malory and the French Cycle's deep intertextuality begs to differ) characteristic of the goodness of the medieval past, as opposed to the heavily literate, pedagogically pre- and proscriptive Victorian present. And in that light, Merlin as this knowledgable guy who introduces a book to Vivien is interesting – still this outside but effective force. *Planning an essay, to be written last-minute. Lovin' ya, April. **to put it rather strongly... P.S. I have a literary crush on Merlin? Haha, I know, I have this urge to learn Welsh even though I doubt it's going to be long-term relevant to my interests – that's more Latin's realm. And French, because I love Chrétien de Troyes (being totally predictable as I am).

Haha, just in general, I reckon. "I'm interested in the human condition and its reflection in literature, social ideologies and agendas (and why they occur)" sounds like it could be directed toward a program in women's studies as much as in English! Depends entirely on approach, of course – my friend's editor-in-chiefing an undergraduate women's studies journal and has me on as a token English-major editor (lulz grammar), and a lot of the submissions fit under that umbrella. There was a really interesting one about Broadway musical culture... ...anyway! Psychoanalytic theory has always seemed a little too deus ex machina for me. I'm not as familiar with the Jungian theory as I am the Freudian (or the "this is what Freud meant to say but I'm saying it" Lacanian) – the latter has always seemed like using astrology to explain literature; "this person is doing this because he has an Oedipus complex/is an Aquarius", you know? I sense that ideally one draws that out of the text to point to some general Truth About Humanity (and said Humanity's desire to shag its parents), but in too many instances it's seemed more like a too-easy code-breaking device for reading texts. Psychoanalytic readings of Hamlet, for instance, are just so heavy-handed! I definitely think the conditions Freud "discovered" were invented by Freud – think of hysteria, for instance. And, considering how he manipulated his results/brainwashed his patients, I feel like one can say that in a more definite way than the more benign* "every discovery is also an invention" approach. The same thing's happening with the system that's usurped the Freudians from psychiatry, the Diagnostic Statistical Manual – there's a really interesting article in the New York Times about the globalization by the west of human consciousness. (And how schizophrenics in non-Western-psychiatry-influenced societies, interestingly, fare much better than they do in ones like ours). *I doubt post-colonialists would agree with the "benign" there, so I'm gonna say I only mean it in the context of that sentence! Pax! Medical and scientific rhetoric being the one the got away, in terms of my long-term focus ! That said, Jung I have not yet discounted. (Whoa, audacity alert.) Besides, the story of his and Freuds homosocial "break-up" is just too good to ignore. I'm really interested in those aspects of Arthurian lit, too; especially the "WTH is this guy doing here" Merlin cameo in Geoffrey of Monmouth...! Makes me wish my current uni offered a class in Welsh. I'm reading Malory for the first time and just digging him like crazy, absurdly long tournament scenes and all. (I was a tomboy as a kid, y'know?) The whole book is like, BROZONE. U2 gets too anthemic too fast! I'm sorry! Costello, though, radasaurus. Nah, only the end of the text. Though, il n'y a pas d'hors-texte, so – er – yum, nihilism!

Shoot! You're right! My vision's been obscured by synth, neon, unitards and the headband/side ponytail combo.

I feel I should throw in a word for the viewpoint that the "screwing over of the female gender*" throughout history is by no means always deliberate and calculated. That's the point of institutionalization, right? *"female gender" being a – say it with me – problematic term, natch Happy to half-prove your point: discussion is something I generally go in for, but I don't agree that everything has been "a deliberate and calculated attempt to screw over [women]". I'm also not a feminist critic. (Just a critic and a feminist. I'm sure they'll overlap someday...) My bugbear about feminist criticism tends to be its close connections to psychoanalytic theory, which I don't go in for at all. Deconstruction, though... *grin* Sparky, I have to agree that Branwen's not necessarily confusing "feminist" and "about women." Only because, Branwen, your description of the human condition sounds very feminist to my ears, which immediately makes me curious as to other interpretations. (I'm either keen or paranoid.) New historicism is definitely an excellent things to emerge from the 80s, which is saying a lot! Okay, new historicism and Flashdance. And many applicants on this board. But seriously. Good stuff from 80s, thin on the ground.

With these decisions, there really isn't an objective point of view, per se – as these replies are evidencing. So, if you'd like my subjective two cents, I would go for Option B. As strokeofmidnight mentioned, it's still funded – do you think the grands you'd be adding onto your debt would be manageable? The "follow the money" advice is good, but these are both offering you money, and I tend to take that advice as "don't drop yourself into unmanageable, decades-to-pay-off debt" – not as a code for, "whichever school offers you more money will clearly be a better fit and experience for you." Definitely consider the money, but consider it along with everything else. Campus environment? Profs? Students? Placements? You could even consider something like placement as a more long-term financial consideration. Plus, American universities seem to go gaga for teaching experience.

Less than, unless you'll be paying in individual dollars. Which would give you that promising future-academic eccentricity streak. I'd agree that piling on the debt doesn't make sense. If the poster before this doesn't have a ton of debt, and you would be willing to carry the price: from what I've seen of the graduate student profiles on the Penn English site, Penn doesn't seem opposed to taking their own MA students into the PhD.

I think the GREs would still be required – they're the standard exam for grad admissions, after all. And as far as the Subject test, I refer to the UCLA site: "…You are also expected to have taken the Graduate Record Examination within the last five years, including the General Test and the Literature in English Subject Test. If you hold the MA, you will be expected to have a grade-point average of at least 3.7 in all graduate courses, and a correspondingly higher score on the Subject Test."

This entire debate over manatee's ethos seems a bit like it's ready to be over, but I have to jump in, briefly and semi-unrelatedly, as a defender of rhetoric. If rhetoric is the art/science of persuasion, then "You need to lose some weight" is as rhetorical a statement as any – the hypothetical speaker's trying to persuade the object of his or her speech to lose weight. We also shouldn't assume that a direct statement – "You need to do this" – is necessarily a truthful and honest one. Whatever issue we take with manatee's rhetoric, let's not say all rhetoric is evil! (Or everyone who ever speaks or writes anything would have to be evil as well...*) While we tend to give rhetoric a bad rap, the reality is that accusing someone of using rhetoric is a bit like accusing them of using diction. *cue maniacal laughter Aaannd, exit nerdy non sequitur.