TC3

True, while we can complain about seemingly intentional ambiguity on departments' ends, they probably don't enjoy flat out telling some stranger over the phone that they've been rejected. I wouldn't go so far as to suggest a real fear of violence or threats, but I'm sure quite a few people might start crying over the phone, pleading with the department, belligerently asking what was wrong with them, etc. etc. I think this all could be solved by taking a lesson from the Beloit Poetry Journal, which responds to submitted manuscripts within 1 or 2 weeks if they go into the slushpile and keeps manuscripts until quarterly review sessions if they make it past the slushpile. Most graduate English programs receive *hundreds* of applications every season. I doubt that they seriously consider all of them with equal weight, especially after the first round of reviewing applications. There has to be a slushpile. I'd go so far as to guess that the majority of deliberation time is for whittling the small group of survivors into an even smaller group of acceptances. If everyone who went into the slushpile were to receive a polite email soon afterwards, we'd all be free of this shameful period of anxiety and hope. It's not so much crushing that a program rejected us as it is shameful in hindsight that we spent so many weeks nervously hoping for a program that probably had decided to reject us by the second week of January. On the other hand, admissions are largely a service-based activity in that no one gets paid more for being in them, and department administrators certainly don't get "application season" bonuses, so perhaps it's just a matter of streamlining the workloads as much as possible during a busy time of year. Still, though, a humanities department (aside from all this post-humanism talk) could stand to adopt a more humanistic approach to its rejection process.

I wouldn't expect any program to reply personally to the hundreds that are passed over, but I also don't think it would be that difficult to send a form email to the slushpile once the slushpile is established, instead of refusing to tell people that they're rejected and allowing them to agonize over weeks and weeks of ambivalence only to receive the same form rejection through snail mail. It further dehumanizes those who don't make it and sends the message that departments only respect applicants if they make it in. Of course, that's an exaggeration, and a department is an aggregation of bureaucratic procedures that don't "treat" people one way or another, but it does seem that there's a lot of apathy towards those who aren't deemed worthy enough by whatever myserious and arbitrary (certainly *not* blind merit) process that ad.coms. use. That said, I really don't feel any animosity towards UIC, and while I don't expect to make it in, if I do, I wouldn't nurse any negative feelings about the application process. They're probably only accepting one or two creative writing PhDs, though, so whoever of that concerntration does make it in, you should feel very, *very* lucky!

I will say that UIC was the only department of the ten to which I'm applying that flat-out refused to update my application file after the due date when I received news of an article acceptance at a scholarly periodical. Every other program, including an Ivy League school, seemed happy to insert a little note into my file. This *is* how it works for job search committees, so it isn't that outlandish to treat doctoral applications differently, professionalism and all .

Well, I think every program is at least partially guilty of drawing out the rejection process, and even further, I'd guess (though I have no proof and ad.coms. would vigorously deny this) that these fees only get a lot of people a fleeting consideration before being tossed in the slushpile. I do wish that the application process were cheaper ($40-$80 per application, postage for materials, $20 per GRE score report, transcript processing fees, paper and printer ink since some applications (e.g. my Cornell MFA/PhD app) can push 70 pages of supplemental materials), since I'm pretty sure that all it gets me at many programs is a passing glance before being written off. But then again, I'm a bit cynical about it. It may involve much more integrity than I give it credit for.

I do find it a bit dehumanizing that the few who are accepted receive personalized, glowing acceptance messages, while those who didn't make the absurdly small cut don't even get the dignity of a straight response. I've experienced this in years past. Apparently we're only good for the form rejection letter that takes an extra month to process through the graduate school.

To return to the original import of this discussion, regardless of the particular readings of subtext, Baldwin importantly points out that most applicants are rejected, admitted, or waitlisted not based on blind merit (i.e. those who make it in deserve to continue working in the Academy while those who are rejected do not), but instead on ad.com. contingencies for which we cannot possibly plan, e.g. notions of professionalization, departmental philosophies, pet projects, political agendas, desired focus areas, similarity to previously admitted students, etc. I'd venture that a significant portion of applicants (which for a major research university can number from two hundred to over seven hundred for roughly a dozen spots) *deserve* to continue working in the Academy, but only a tiny sliver of those are *allowed* to do so. The Chronicle of Higher Education (recently?) ran an article concerning some disturbing similarities between graduate humanities work and cult psychology, the most striking being that a severe stigma of failing to "cut it" is threatened on those who would have recourse outside of the organization. For academics, this translates to the paralyzing and sometimes hysterial anxiety that we will be rejected by every program to which we've applied. Because, as such, we will have failed. Because the only laudable use of our abilities is within a system of gatekeeping devices, a game that, despite being rigged from the ver beginning, welcomes all new players with open arms. Kafka's parable of the Law provides an eerily accurate analogy. I've been rejected across the board in the 2007/2008 and 2008/2009 application rounds (21 rejections total). This is my third try. I'll admit that it took me those two rounds to "figure out" (somewhat) what ad.coms. seek, and I'm pretty confident with my application package this time around. Does it mean that I deserve it any more than I did the first time? Nope. It just means I've learned how to articulate my abilities and interests in a way that will speak to a verry narrow demographic of gatekeepers. And even then, I still can be rejected by every program. Who can *plan* for the contingencies that make one application stand out among hundreds of equally deserving people? That said, straightshooter is on-the-spot concerning the shocking inability to discern those who will sputter out, and how to those of us who are chomping at the reigns, this appears to be an utter waste and a big middle finger. I received my BA from a lesser-known state research university, and was not given funding for my Masters at a program consistently ranked between 50 and 75 by US News & World Report. At my MA program, the incoming student who had received the most generous funding package dropped out after one year, caving under the expectations of graduate school. The only MA student of my specialization who was funded dropped out because he quickly lost interest and wanted to pursue a more lucrative career in the family business. Another funded masters student couldn't care less about English, but was using the MA as a stepping stone into a diffent focus area at an out-of-state school. Another fully funded masters student has stayed the course, but has nothing other than class transcripts and the requisite GTA teaching load to show for it. Advanced doctorate students in my specialty confided that they didn't plan on staying in the academy after graduating, one even expressing interest in working in Human Resources. Ironically, most of my unfunded peers were more serious about and accomplished in their fields than were many (though not all, of course) of my funded peers. I don't know how to remedy this, but I've unfotunately spend a lot of time being frustrated about it, and can understand if the bitterness gets a little out of hand. If we can reduce this multidimensional constellation of crappiness to one problem, I'd say that it would be that there is little or nothing for humanities scholars outside of the Academy, whereas a chemistry or business major will be able to use their field knowledge directly in extra-academic jobs. The larger cultural shift away from humanities values (cf. Mark Slouka's "Dehumanized" in Harper's) no doubt contributes to this increasing isolation. If there were tasks for which people could put humanities skills and knowledge to use, perhaps this would act asa filter of sorts for those who otherwise would be forced into graduate study even though their heart is not in it, because it's the only option that makes their previous college study not seem like a waste of time, pragmatically speaking.

Right, I recall that UIC accepted 7 and waitlisted approximately 7 last year, out of approximately 200 PhD applicants (3% acceptance rate, more stringest than even some of the most exclusive medical schools in the US). I've only heard of tiny, tiny programs (e.g. Washington University in St. Louis) accepting less than this, and it would be strange for a program as large as UIC to go below 7. I suppose, though, with their funding package (6 years even for those who already hold a Masters), money *would* be tight even at those small numbers. Perhaps the "cutting down on slots" announcement is still lingering from last year?

If the post is legitimate, someone already has been notified of acceptance at Cornell (see results page). Looking back at the results from years past, it seems that programs notify the elect long before the time that they announce as the "notification date," which really is more of when they tell the hundreds of people who didn't make it that they were passed over.

I guess all we can do is wait, right? I also guess that ultimately the process is so subjective and arbitrary (as a professor once admitted to me), we can talk about it until we're blue in the face and it still could come down to whether or not someone "gets" our poetry or finds our research interests valid.

I've heard conflicting advice about indicating a POI. On the one hand, some have told me that it helps establish the "good fit" and "I've researched your program" aspects in a SOP, but on the other, there's the notion that it's better to establish these strengths through simply indicating one's interests and agenda that would end up being a good fit and appealing to one or more faculty members, as it's entirely uncertain if you'll end up working with that particular faculty member or even keep the same specific research agenda. I can see both sides. It would be good to hit the ground running in terms of a mentor relationship, but it would not be good to base one's interests and agendas solely on one or two people. I'd think, though, that if the POI were on the admissions committee, it would make much more of a difference, but then again, I've never been privy to the inner workings of admissions committees. It might even be as petty as a person on the admissions committee disliking another faculty member whom you've indicated as a POI. That's exaggerating, and it's an unfair caricature, but still, it indicates my overall stance on POIs: in theory nothing wrong with it, but in practice a labyrinth of second-guessing.

I am curious about the MFA/PhD track, specifically what kind of people they consider for it. I feel that my credentials (e.g. both scholarly and creative publications, editorial experience, research awards, etc.) make me a strong contender against otherwise narrow and high standards, but I also recognize that my degrees (BA + MA) from public schools (my undergrad English program isn't even given a numbered rank by US News & World Report) are a severe handicap when it comes to such an elite, Ivy league program. Cornell was a frivolous application for me, but again, I'm quite curious as to the qualities of those chosen for the MFA/PhD program.

Yes, anyone admitted please post when they're notified, and for what focus area. I'm particularly interested in the creative writing PhD. I'm also wondering if POI voicemail messages would precede the more official, yet still unofficial DGS email/call, for those who indicated a POI on their SOP.