Medievalmaniac

[TANGENT] - Strong White Flat: If you are interested in concepts of identity - national and individual - and of international conflicts within that arena, then you probably want to look at either early modern literature (+/- the Renaissance, give or take about twenty or thirty or fifty years in either direction dependent upon who you are working with and reading), the literatures of Africa or of India/ British India, or postmodern literature, which is the second half of the twentieth century. Also, you would definitely want to start by immersing yourself in Marxist theory, especially postcolonial and its offshoots, and probably also myth theory and psychoanalytical approaches, such as archetypes and collective consciousness. You can do really interesting things with the concept of nationalism in literature - the effects of the government on the literature/ censorship and media, the role of writers in establishing national identity, foundational cultural myths of identity, the changes and shifts in identity from one generation to the next, postwar identity, insular communities versus colonizing groups in literature, expansion, industrialization, and community in literature, the individual versus the collective identity in literature - really, the field is wide open, and there are really interesting research projects going on over this very thing, especially in comparative literature. My own graduate thesis was on the collective unconscious and the crafting of national identity in medieval Arthurian texts; I argue that the writers of the Matter of Britain (King Arthur legend) deliberately picked and chose from various sources both real and imagined to construct Arthur as a central figure of Britishness, appealing to certain psychological characteristics over others, that they understood and tapped into the needs of their readers for a strong archetypal figurehead, and that this served as the foundation for the newly emergent Britain's national identity in post-Conquest Anglo-Norman England; through close textual comparison and analysis, I then looked at how the Arthurian legend changed and expanded to fit the needs of each successive generation throughout the Middle Ages in England, without ever actually changing the foundational identifying factors of Arthur the Briton, permitting him to remain as a central myth of national identity while also evolving to fit the needs of the changing country, even through today (there's a reason HRM Charles, Prince of Wales has the full name "Charles Phillip ARTHUR George" - it's to establish his family's right to the throne by association with King Arthur, which by association links them to Henry VII, Richard Lionheart, etc. etc. etc. -all of whom claimed Arthur as kin, despite the fact there is no good, solid evidence of Arthur's ever having existed as such- I have a theory I'm working on concerning this, actually; I contend Arthur is actually historical - but he's not Arthur. Hang in for more details in a forthcoming article! ). My overall aim through this sort of work is to show that the concept of national identity is a deliberate fabrication in emergent nations that is crafted by writers, adopted by leaders, and ratified by the assent of the people: "Yes, this is what we are and what we stand for" and that, while that concept changes and shifts, it still remains the same fundamental character. If modern countries want to truly get along and create a global community, the first step is to understand this, demystify the myth, accept that many of the baseline differences between countries in terms of ideology and character are deliberately chosen and therefore culturally inherent and not necessarily genetic/racial in nature, and therefore that by accepting this, embracing these cultural myths, but knowing they are just that, and then working from that as a baseline to construct international relationships, we can arrive at a better foundation for international dialogue on some of the most pressing issues of our time. This thesis was particularly ambitious, especially for an MA thesis, because it made use of all three major schools of literary theory - Psychoanalytical, via Jungian psychology and myth theory, Marxist, via postcolonial theory, and Structuralist/Formalist via close reading and analysis of text and language - which makes for a very complicated argument. It also is currently under revision for publication with a well-known academic press...so, there's definitely a lot of interest in this sort of thing. For beginning reading in terms of the concept of national identity and literature, I'd suggest Benedict Anderson's Imagined Communities, Thorlac Turville-Petre's England, the Nation, Susan Crane's Insular Romance, and then branch off from their bibliographies into other reading. [bACK TO REGULARLY SCHEDULED DISCUSSION ALREADY IN PROGRESS]: Honestly, I think it's for all of the reasons you have listed above. Certainly, there are so many PhDs that highly-trained students from top programs sometimes don't have an option and go to lesser schools as assistant professors - but when they do, they have to adjust their expectations to fit the demographic of their new post - if you are an Ivy League educated PhD in Queer Theory, and you're teaching at a second-tier state campus, your students may or may not react to your work the way you expect them to - in which case, you either adjust the material to render it more accessible, take the time to really educate them on a higher level, don't bother teaching it except at graduate level, or some combination of the three. In some cases, I think what happens is that through sheer force of will (I AM a queer theorist and you people WILL study this with me even if we are in the middle of nowhere!) a professor can create an interest in the subject matter than didn't exist in his or her school prior. By conferencing, bringing in colleagues, and advertising his or her classes, and through word of mouth, s/he can build a mini-community that expands according to his or her talent, drive and ability. A couple of other new professors in different areas of interest take an interest in how s/he is doing this and begin to look at queer theories within their own disciplines. A couple of discussions turns into an interdisciplinary approach with the sociology department or a cross field approach between the medievalist and the nineteenth century Brit lit scholar; the Italian instructor gets a great idea for a textual/lingual interface between himself and the Dantisti in the English department concerning queer models in the Inferno; they all petition the Dean of Arts and Sciences for a minor or a certificate in queer studies, and since it won't cost the school a dime and it sounds "sexy" the dean agrees - eventually, nowhere State U. becomes known for this bizarrre cross-discipline specialization, which came about because there were several assistant professors, all looking for ways to publish and distinguish themselves, all united under the banner "we will succeed even if we are at X,Y, Z college and not an R1! Tenure for the masses!" It sounds like an academic fantasy or academic science fiction, but this actually does happen (maybe not in queer studies). At my undergraduate institution, there were practically no medieval studies available. My professor is a medievalist. The History department hired a medievalist to replace an outgoing World History generalist. They got together and wham! Bam! They are on their fourth year of a well-received, regional, annual undergraduate conference in medieval studies - the only one in a two hundred mile radius. She has several graduate students coming to work with her specifically because of their introduction to her work through their participation as undergrads in this conference. So, to answer your question - yes, I think it is all three - it's a diffusion of talent, a spillover, and an increase in specializations available.

lolol...I would be in the library, because it's a Friday night and there's nobody else there, so I have the stacks all to myself to work on my big term paper/conference presentation while you guys are all pill-popping, wine-sipping, and sorry you even came to the stupid party. ;) (J/K). I'd party with y'all any day...these are seriously some of the best conversations I've had since my last conference.

I have been following this thread with a great deal of interest and of enjoyment. I have only two small things to contribute - one, a rhetorical question with (admittedly pointless) commentary, and two, a short remark. The rhetorical question: Who DOES fill out the questionnaire or what-have-you for "America's Top Ranked Graduate Programs"? It seems to me that if this is based on the "data" as reported by schools and on the judgment of scholars and researchers in the field - well, like the Bible, all such materials and perceptions are those of individuals, every individual has an agenda - you all know the drill. We don't really know how this research is conducted. Also, insofar as individual disciplines and subfields within disciplines go - the rankings really don't seem to matter. As we have noted, there are outstanding examples of a strong eighteenth--century studies cohort within an otherwise lackluster department, excellent rhetoric and comp training at a school where medievalists in the English department aren't expected to know Latin, a fabulous experience for students in minority literature in a department where noone in anything prior to 20th century lit would ever want to hang his or her hat. And I think that while the overall ranking of the school can mean something to someone, ultimately people in the field you plan to enter are going to know who you have worked with and who you know, and that's going to work for you more. In other words, if I'm applying for the open medievalist position at State U in the Midwest, and I'm coming from, let's say hypothetically, UNCG, and I've worked with Denise Baker...maybe there are other professors applying for this job from top schools, but if Midwest U has strong religious studies offerings and interdisciplinary work, and I've studied with one of the world's leading experts on Julian of Norwich in addition to working in Middle English, I might well have an advantage over the other applicants, assuming that the department to which I am making application knows who Denise Baker is. That's where (ideally) Denise has sent a letter of support for your application, and the other medievalists in the department have seen this letter and said "Oh, wow, yeah, Denise, she's a leading expert on Julian of Norwich, and we're short a mystics expert, check out this girl carefully". I think it depends to large extent on how the application is vetted, and if it were me I would certainly make sure the other professors teaching in my field and/or subfields got personal copies of my CV prior to my interview, since they're the ones who will know who those I have worked with are and what I'm doing. (Does that even make sense...?) The short point is - the rankings in USN&WR are based on the whole department, and everyone actually already in academia knows that's not a reflection of the reality in many cases, so ultimately, I'd give them more benefit of the doubt. The remark - English is neither a qualitative nor a quantitative discipline. It is probably the most interdisciplinary of all subjects, because it is so diverse - you have the various world literatures, minority literatures, linguistics, rhetoric and comp, creative writing, comparative literature - in many universities, all lumped together under the main subject heading English. And with so many theoretical schools - postcolonial, psychoanalytical, structuralist, poststructuralist, new historical, formalist, myth, gender, etc. etc. etc. - cognitive approaches to literature deal much more with quantitative data, and many of the form and style schools do as well. Certainly, there is a lot of qualitative work done in textual analysis and comparison as well. I know some professors who are really applying scientific data analysis to literature with some intersting results, especially in terms of cognition/brain function in reading. So, I don't think it's as easy as just making a blanket statement that "English is....(quantitative/qualitative)" and I do think that doing so one way or the other is likely to marginalize at least a quarter of the folks here in this forum, much less in the greater world of English studies. One reason English appeals to me is this diversity of approaches - every time you talk to someone working in some area of English, you learn something you didn't know and see something in a new and different way. It's such a dynamic and fluid discipline!

No. I have an MA in English with a 4.0 GPA and publications, and every program I looked into still required the GRE general. Some of them did not require the subject test...but I was rejected from 4 of 5 and not funded with the 5th, so I think the subject test might be required as the "deal maker" in a situation in which the choice is a close one between you and other applicants. At any rate, I'm taking it in the fall and hoping to get accepted with funding next year.

I just got my Penn State rejection on Tuesday...so apparently they are still sifting through the apps.

I've been thinking about this thread and about the responses and conversations that have been posted. And I think what it boils down to, ultimately, is perceptions, and who has them, about what, and based on what. When you argue that "going to any school that is less than a top-twenty school" (in some cases, a top ten, dependent upon your situation and who you have been talking to) is pointless - where did you get that statement from? Surely as an undergraduate you didn't think of it yourself. Ten to one, you got it from one or more of your own professors. Who all have their own ideas about things. Who all come from programs they either loved or got through, who have all had their own ups and downs and experiences with the system and the market and everything else. I have a professor who went to a very elite, overseas university with one of the best programs in the world, literally, for medieval studies. When she came back to the States, she was beat out for a job by someone from Yale because he held an Ivy League doctorate. Her degree absolutely outranks his as far as the field of study is concerned, but the department just saw Yalie Blue available and pounced. She got a different job, and as it happens has won numerous awards already for teaching and for scholarship, on the international level. He has one article out, and it wasn't that well received. Needless to say, she's a little dismissive of the Ivy programs in general and of Yale in particular, because her degree has gotten her farther, faster, in the overall world of medieval studies on the international level than has that of the fellow who beat her out of the slot at Prestige U. - but, she also resents hell out of them because here in America, they get the largest piece of the pie even when they don't yield the most productive scholarship and teaching. Other professors have told me "if you can't go to a top school, don't go". Many of them are jaded because they didn't end up where they wanted to be - in research institutions - and they think that's the sign of success; they didn't set out to work in liberal arts colleges, but that is where they ended up - so yeah, they're a little bitter. I had one professor (now retired) who went to a state school - not even a flagship state school - and was a top scholar in his field, a Fulbright scholar, and an incredibly prolific and well-respected authority in his subject. The school is not even ranked according to Forbes et al. I wouldn't bat an eye about going to the same program, which still has a good, solid reputation but isn't ranked - because that's the kind of scholar I want to be. I've had professors from top programs who really can't teach. I've had professors from top programs who are the best teachers you could ever hope to study under. I've had professors from No-Name U in both categories, as well. I'm not sure it's the program that determines whether you can convey what you know to someone else, I think it's the individual scholar/teacher - some are teachers, and some aren't. A top scholar from a top program who can't interact with his or her students is nowhere near as valuable as the middling university graduate whose courses are full because she's so good at what she does. Some of the best medievalists in the field are at small, liberal arts colleges and don't even take graduate students. Some never conference. They are busy doing their jobs as teacher-researchers. They're priceless, and not interested in teaching at a prestigious university. Some of the biggest names in English hardly ever teach at all. Some of them tech freshman comp. It's all a matter of where your priorities are, in my opinion. There's no good or bad, right or wrong - there are just all kinds of academics and all kinds of mindsets about what that means, and we have to decide as graduate students what is for us and go to a school that fosters our particular view of the thing. I have friends currently at top 10 and even top 5 schools. Some of them are having the time of their lives; some are really unhappy. At least two of them are very, VERY ABD, and will probably never finish. I wouldn'I want to go to a name-brand school and then just do my best to get through it. I'd rather go to a B-level or even C-level program where I matter to my professors and where my work is appreciated and my energy is harnessed and my ideas are considered. This is not to say that all Ivies or all elite institutions are like that, but I do think there's a tendency to think, "you're in, you're golden," and I don't believe that. I think you really do need to consider yourself as an individual and what you want out of the experience. And that is a very individual choice, that has to be made about each individual department, by each prospective scholar. A department that looks perfect on paper and has a stellar reputation may, in person, be a den of conspiracies and negativity, but not yet recognized as such; a department not really noted may have hired several new professors and be on the up-and-up - as someone else here has pointed out, things change, and the stats don't always keep up - which is why in-person visits and talking with current students is soooo important. My perception of the anti-Ivy schtick is that yes, in some cases it is sour grapes. In some cases, it's a genuine distaste for elitist, entrenched patterns - whether this is true or not, the impression remains. In some cases, it stems from deep-seated resentment of people who went to an ivy and just happen to be in someone's life, made it unpleasant, and therefore the whole shebang is tainted. In some cases, it's a desire to see a more even playing field in academia overall. There are just a multitude of possible reasons behind it. Who knows? Again, it's so personal and subjective. For my part, I'm a first-generation college student who went to a public ivy for my undergraduate experience. I worked full time and commuted from home to make it happen. My grades suffered because I had no free time to get the reading and papers done properly. That's OK - I finished, and frankly, at that point, I was glad to graduate at all. As an adult with children, I have very different considerations than many other applicants when I make choices as to where to apply. But I don't think deciding to have a family should preclude me from getting a PhD, and I know that my work and research and current projects are top-caliber, because I am winning awards, being asked and paid to give presentations to groups, and working with a publishing house on my first monograph. there's a program out there that will gladly overlook my undergraduate GPA in light of the fact that everything I have done since then has put me in the position I am in today - an avid and dedicated scholar, a strongly capable teacher, and a passionate representative for my field of study. I thought I was top-shelf, and so did my recommenders - two of whom graduated from top-shelf programs. Turns out, top-shelf doesn't think so, and that's OK, it really is. Sure, I'm disappointed - but I also believe that there's surely a program out there that will think so...I just have to be patient, research programs, and apply until I get into one of them. I will not be going to Harvard, Yale, Cornell, Princeton, UNC-Chapel Hill, Florida State - or any of the top programs in my field - not because I don't want to, or because I have something against them, or for any reason other than that I cannot get in because I made different choices. That is OK with me. I would not trade my children for a degree, nor any of the experiences that have made me the person and the teacher I am today - a far, FAR better one than I was originally on the path to being, thanks to some excellent mentoring from my Dean of Academics and, mostly, to being a parent myself and to the students I have taught over the years. Maybe I'm not top shelf as far as ad comms at many programs are concerned. But, I will go to a PhD program somewhere, and I will finish it, and I will continue to work with the scholars from those institutions for the rest of my career as a colleague. I'm already corroborating on projects with some of the students in these programs, and already making working relationship connections with the professors in my field that I admire. So, for me, I may never teach at an R1 institution - but that is not my personal definition of success. My definition of success is to be a respected, contributing member of the overall academic community and of my field in particular, wherever I end up - and that's not on my degree program, my recommenders, my professors, or anyone else - it's on me. It may be a lot harder for me to get my foot in the door initially, but ultimately whether I am a success or failure has nothing to do with the program I attend, it has everything to do with what I do with that education. It's on me to make it work, as well as I can. If I succeed brilliantly, it will not be because of the piece of paper on my wall, but because of my character. I hope this post conveys what it is intended to, which is that success is personally defined, even if society overall has a generally accepted view of what it means. For me, success is and always has been an ongoing process. My end goal is to conduct excellent scholarship and to teach at the university level. If I apply three or four times before I get into a PhD program, but ultimately I get in - OK, I didn't get into a top program, but I succeeded in meeting my goal of getting into a program that will qualify me to teach at the university level. When I graduate from that program, I'm still going to be Professor Medievalmaniac, even if it is as a commuting adjunct at three community colleges, and as Professor Medievalmaniac, I will continue to research, write, conference and publish, whether that's easy or hard. (Currently, I pay for my travel out of pocket and if I want to conduct research, I have to travel over an hour to get to the nearest academic library and beg my friends to get me copies of articles from JSTOR - I am OK with it's being hard to maintain my professional activities). There may be people who will shake their heads and say ruefully, "ahhh, just think what you could have done if you had just gone to Brand Name University". That's not my problem, that's theirs...I'll be busy teaching, researching, writing, and being a professional scholar. I just want to do the work, and frankly, I don't care where I do it, or who I do it with - it's not about that. It's about me and my scholarship and teaching. Having worked in urban public schools, rural public schools, and an elite boarding school, in departments that have been collegial and departments that have been total snakepits, I have learned one crucial thing about success as I define it for myself - which is that If I'm focused and passionate about my work, then I'm going to be fine wherever I end up.

I excerpted those elements of this post that are most pertinent to my response, in order to save space. I just wanted to point out that there are a number of posts throughout this grad forum from people who applied for their third time this year and got into top programs. I'm not saying you are wrong, but clearly, there can be an argument for "bothering to apply" a third time, and plainly on this third try these individuals - who in some cases have been accepted at programs they unsuccessfully applied to before - made the cut. I imagine there are many others not affiliated with grad forum who also are in this happy situation this year after multiple unsuccessful rounds. I don't necessarily think rejection - or even multiple rejections - means you are 'not really cut out for academics' - there are a lot of reasons for which people are not accepted in any given year. I had a Director of English Graduate Studies email me personally to tell me that any other year, I'd have probably been in; he was really sorry I didn't make the cut, and has asked if I plan to apply again next year. I had another director email me to tell me that nothing I have done will ever get me into her program. A third program had me on the waitlist for a long time before ultimately choosing not to extend the offer. I'm not sure how to reconcile those first two arguments, both of which came from schools closely ranked to one another in the top 15, except that every department and every cohort within the department is different - and an applicant who truly believes in him or herself and truly has what it takes to do a PhD will probably eventually find a PhD program to work in, should that end up being his or her ultimate choice. I don't think it is unreasonable, provided that you are not grossly incompetent - to apply several times before finding yourself extended an offer of admission; certainly not when many departments are being flooded with hundreds more applications than they expected. I think it is admirable to hold fast to your dreams and to reach for your goals. In the meantime, between application rounds, rather than sitting around waiting for life, I think most people are working, taking classes, and so forth; those who plan to apply again are probably reviewing materials for exams, rewriting papers and/or SOPs, conferencing, and so forth. I don't think of this as being put on hold - I think of it as part of the life I have chosen to live. I imagine many others feel the same way. Congratulations, though, on your accept! I'm sure it's a relief not to be among the many reapplying next year.

Quentinc - congratulations!!! What's your specialty field? Bran - does that GAH mean bad news...?

Me, too - dying to congratulate you! 'Fess up!

Somebody mentioned he's doing two PhDs - is he pursuing them both at the same institution? Isn't it against academic policy (not to mention all-but-impossible logistically) to pursue two PhDs simultaneously at two different institutions? And ultimately, if he is getting funding, he CAN'T be pursuing two PhDs at two different institutions, so if that's the case and anyone finds out, raise a stink. Funding is contingent on the university's exclusive right to your brain during the course of your studies - conflict of interests, and so forth. That's why people with fellowships aren't supposed to hold down jobs; in some cases (not all, but some), if it is a particularly prestigious fellowship, and you have a job aside from that, they can revoke it and send you packing. And he's sending his ASSISTANT to classes for him? WTF? What is the point of the degree, then? And aside from that, how does he expect anyone to take him seriously as an academic? It's his assistant everyone's going to consider the scholar, right? lol I would love to think he really means it. I'm going to keep on deluding myself that no university would take him just because he's James Franco, and why on earth Yale of all places would so do - unless he donated an endowment or something - is beyond me: after all, Yale is the Alma Mater of some of the single most famous and influential people in history. He's a good actor, but certainly not on the top ten of all time list, or at least not yet. I'm with y'all - I'd LOVE to see his application and SOP.

Well - maybe his critical writing is better than his fiction. I mean, he got into the English program, not the MFA program in Creative Writing... For MY part, I wonder if he's going to concentrate on medieval, or 20th century studies? lolol It is discouraging, though. If he really WANTS to change course and do something besides acting, that's great, more power to him. I'm sure he'd make a fascinating and poised lecturer/ professor. But if I am still seeing him in big-budget films in a decade or so, I'll be sad for the folks who didn't get that slot to achieve their dreams. I think I'll just imagine he's had enough of the acting gig and really WANTS to immerse himself in medieval romance tradition, Celtic literature, and the origins of the Tristan legend.

based off of my interviewing of others relentlessly, meaning a lot of discussions with people who have their PhDs and people in the middle of their programs and people who have quit and gone on to other things, I have come to the conclusion that there are as many reasons not to finish as there are people in PhD programs. But the primary culprits appear to be the following (in no particular order, and keeping in mind I was polling English profs and prof wannabes): 1. wrong fit, either in terms of department and or/subject matter. Most of the people who have told me this was their reason were traditional, straight-through PhD students. A lot of them indicated they wished they had taken a gap year before starting because they didn't think they would have gone into the program in the first place. Only a couple were people who had done something else first and then gone back to school. 2. burnout. A lot of people get halfway through the academic portion and just start thinking: "God, I'm so tired of being in the classroom! It's not worth it!" There are also a lot of people I have spoken to who told me they got to a point where they were sitting in their classes thinking: "I already know all of this, what's the point?" When it got to where they had to take classes, but they really felt they knew more than the professor teaching the class, they lost focus. A couple of these quit their program, most of them got to burnout part two.... 3. burnout part two. They work themselves to death, for a pittance of a stipend and / or fellowship, and it's drudgery with no end in sight (their words, lol). They teach freshman comp class after freshman comp class, they barely have time to get their own work done, and "if this is academia then screw it!" (in my opinion, these are people who probably should be in the "wrong fit" category, but were too stubborn to say so - they like the IDEA of professorship, they just don't like the reality - which is teaching and grading a lot of poorly prepared students among the shining starts). Most of these end up getting to ABD, but then they hit burnout number three 4. ABD burnout. In this case, they've worked their butts off for two or three years taking classes and teaching classes. Now they're faced with the freakishly stressful idea of writing their own book, from scratch. They also have way less supervision. The temptation to revert to pre-PhD coursework slacking off status can be extremely hard to resist - if your first chapter's not due for three months, why not rest and take some deserved down time? The fact that they managed to get as much done as they did while teaching lures them into a false sense of security in terms of what they can get done in what amount of time. Then they freak out because the chapter is due and they haven't started researching. This leads to missed deadline after missed deadline and active engagement in trying to avoid everything having to do with the dissertation, which eventually becomes a not-written dissertation. 5. Dissertation fear - this isn't quite the same. You don't not do it because you're burned out, you don't do it because you are paralyzed at the idea that your idea might not be good enough, your dissertation isn't going to be long enough, your thesis might be debunked, your writing might show you as a fake scholar, you may never get it defended - this one is a purely psychological hangup. Apparently (based on what I've been told) people in this category "knew" they were going to have to write a dissertation "eventually" - but when "eventually" came around they felt so overwhelmed they couldn't get past that. In this case also, a lax advisor is very unhelpful - if you are already terrified, and then your dissertation advisor expects you to be a fully independent scholar and does not offer you a lot of support (i.e. handholding) this can result in an unfinished (unstarted) PhD. Some people need more coaching than others. Knowing this about yourself ahead of time can save you grief because you can then make sure you choose an advisor who is more willing to give you extra assistance/coaching through your hang ups. Alternately, (I have been told) seeking out a therapist and talking through this is a good idea. 6. family issues. This can take the form of anything from aging parents, to young children, to family members with disabilities, to your own disabilities, to divorce, death, etc. etc. etc. - but the stress of real life can absolutely, when coupled with the stress of dissertating, lead to no dissertation - if something has to give, it's often the PhD, at least temporarily...and if time runs out and you can't get an extension, then that's that. 7. Program cuts/lack of funding to finish out. This can be because there's already a lot of debt in the family or because you choose specifically not to go into debt, but finances appear to be an important reason not to finish. These were the most often listed problems with getting the PhD...but there were several others as well. Essentially, I think you just have to stay focused and motivated - and since your PhD is a very personal and individual thing, that's sometimes really hard to do. Hope that helps...?

Thank you so much! This is incredibly invaluable information. I will be applying with my MA already completed, which (as you noted) they appear to prefer, especially in terms of funding. I'll be out of state, though - we live on the border between Virginia and North Carolina, and I will petition for in state rates on the grounds that we are only twenty minutes from the border and that UNC is therefore the closest program available, but I am not banking on actually getting the classification. I'll probably just rent a room somewhere in Greensboro and get my mail there - alternately, I THINK if I am working there, I can also get residency status, so I'd only be out of state the first year in that case if I got a TA ship, which I'm pretty sure I would qualify for. As you have noticed, this program is a huge plus for those of us not going straight hrough, in that they really do want to work with people who are nontraditional students, and their scheduling makes it very possible for families, etc. Also, I've heard a lot of praise for the Nineteenth century scholars working there from several other professors in the field, and Denise Baker is an extremely well-known medievalist (she does mystic narratives) so in the grand scheme of things, even though it isn't a top twenty school, still the program is recognized for contribution to English scholarship, and I feel good about the education aspect of it. Another plus is that the English faculty is a fairly young one - they apparently are transitioning - and so I think there is less of a likelihood of someone I want to work with's retiring, whereas I know Kennedy at UNC-CH is finishing up and not taking on more students, Wittig is also nearing retirement, Norris Lacy at Penn State is looking to retire...the Olde Guarde in medieval studies is shifting, as it were. So, a program like UNC-G in which the two full-time medievalists both appear to be sticking around for a good time yet is definitely appealing for that reason as well. So -definitely applying!! I hope to visit the campus in the near future.

I wouldn't take any more master-level courses at this point. If you already have two on top of the degree, you're just flushing money down the drain, no program is going to take those credits, and if you've already taken two more and gotten As in both, then there's nothing else you can prove doing that. Your application seems fairly solid (I haven't seen the SOP or the writing sample, obviously) but your scores certainly meet all cut-offs - although it is interesting that your Math score is higher than your verbal. So in application years like this one, the UGPA and the SOP are probably your biggest issues. Do you have any professors from your graduate program, or the director of graduate studies at the school you graduated from, who could vet your application for you and give you some ideas? I've been speaking with my old director of grad studies and she was floored by some of the things I did and didn't do (granted, I figured them out) but her response was "Why didn't you ask me to look it over before you sent it off"? (answer: it was an online application! lol) BUT, certainly, she could have alerted me to some of the problems I needed to address in my SOP and didn't, etc. etc. Also - research other schools. Twentieth century is (according to the professors I talk to) by FAR the most popular area of interest (even though it seems like the world is overrun by medievalists, lolol). So 20th century spots are hard to come by. You need to really narrow your focus to a few specific interests and tailor your SOP to address why you would work so well with professor a,b, or c. After that, it's all a game of blind luck, as far as I'm concerned.

Muffinlit, what is your specialty area? Maybe you can tweak that some to appeal to programs? If you want to send me your SOP, I would have a look at it for you...I've learned some good points about what experienced teachers tend to do that can land us on the reject pile even though we think it makes us sound experienced and confident. Glad to share what I know with you. Good luck!!

I'm sorry you had another rough application year. What's your background - UGPA, GREs, interests, etc. etc.? Are there any particular restrictions in terms of where you are applying (i.e. a mortgage, family, etc. etc.)? Maybe others can give you some ideas of programs you might not have considered these past two go-rounds. Are there any courses you can take and/or activities you can do in or around the area where you live to enhance your application? I'm with Branwen...this summer and fall, I am retaking the GRE, taking the subject test, revising hell out of the SOP, and I have already swapped out a LOR writer for a better and more closely aligned to what I do LOR. I'm also scheduled to go to a conference this weekend in my field, and am presenting a paper at the international conference in my field in May, where I am going to meet and talk to EVERYONE I can meet and talk to from prospective departments (I've already staked out the program for which sessions they're presenting at! lol) - whatever it takes to push myself into the "accept with funding" pile.

I'm 35, and I'll be 36 when I reapply in the fall. I have two children, aged 5 and 2. It's so nice to see so many other nontrads around! I often feel so old in comparison to others. My current high school students were born in the 1990s. WHAT?! lol It's hard to reconcile that with my feeling that I can't possibly be that old! lol I still remember when I started teaching, and I was only five years older than my students. It's so hard to fathom that it's been that long. But what I lack in youth, I make up for in total enthusiasm for my research!!

Here are the books I have read and enjoyed and/or found helpful on this topic: Ms. Mentor - she has two books out, and they're geared predominantly towards women in academe. She is HILARIOUS, but also has a lot of really good points, especially in her first "Impeccable Advice" book for women in academe. She also writes a column for the CHE. Mentor in a Manual is a good book in terms of understanding the basic outline of an academic career from beginning through tenure. Writing Your Dissertation in Fifteen Minutes a Day. I'm still not 100% certain this is REALLY a realistic goal, but it definitely helped to calm my nerves about even the prospect of the diss. process. Paul Gray, What They Didn't Teach You in Graduate School focuses mainly on the first couple of years out of the PhD, but it was a good, solid set of advice. Dora Farkas, The Smart Way to Your PhD - essentially, she collected several successful students' observations about what to do, what not to do, and so forth and compiled them. Worth a look.

This is a really great consideration, and one I DO - I spend a lot of time thanking those who have helped me in public fashion and maintaining their investment in me by working hard and crediting them for their help and influence - but would never necessarily have thought to write about. Great suggestion!!

Me, too, Jota! It's so unfair, and so wrong, and - yeah. For the main argument - I hope you get your situation sorted out to where you can accommodate both of you and your likes and dislikes. Seven years is a long time to be together - but honestly, if he knows there is a finite time during which you are getting this degree, and he loves you, he will either stay there with you while you finish out, move elsewhere and insist you do the degree and suck up the two year gap, end the relationship, or make it impossible for you to go where you (apparently) want to go via guilt tripping and/or threatening to break up over it. Which decision is right for you in the long run? I can't answer that, and I don't think any of us can. I will say that I chose a school for my then-husband, to accommodate what he wanted. Then, a year into the two year program, I had to leave the area immediately because we separated and he went stalker on me. Never finished that degree, and it has caused me trouble ever since....so, that's my cautionary tale on the idea of going anywhere based solely on an SO who does not have to move for his own job.

Wow - your POI sounds like kind of a jerk. Why would she feel the need to say anything at all to you, if it was just to point out that she was not going to stick around to hear your paper? That was pretty self-important of her - what makes her think you WANTED her to stick around to hear your paper?I think you are better off not trying to work with her. And two snaps - ouch, I'm soooo sorry that happened to you! What an awful ordeal. In my case - meh, it happened. I'm not going to send a nasty letter to respond to what she probably thought was a nice, personal rejection. But I am going to a.) retake the GRE and take the GRE subject test and do the best I can to get better than great scores before applying again next season and b.) make sure I read everything she writes from now on veeeeeeery carefully for slip ups or errors in facts or syntax....!

Congratulations, ratiocinator! How exciting for you! Yay. Everyone else: hang in there, there's still hope!!