WildeThing

Because adcomms might think I don’t know what I want to do, or that I’m not entirel committed. Maybe it’s just my paranoia but I can’t imagine it is actually benefitting me.

I’m from the MA camp, though instead of having one in English I will have 3 in adjoining fields by the time I start the PhD. At this stage it is probably counting against me, but that’s how it’s played out.

I definitely will, though my worry is that they will push me towards getting an F1 instead, and that is not option for me since I am coming with my wife who can't not work for 6+ years (but I don't know if that's a valid reason (in their eyes) to need a J1 and maneuver the additional bureaucracy).

No idea on interviews. I feel like if one is offered it will take place very soon after the notice and I don't feel prepared for it at all. I mostly worry about being asked about the field and not having an answer that shows sufficient knowledge (which is silly considering you do 2 years of MA before you even get to the thesis). I'm fairly confident about doing well if the interview is a chat or about my own application.

I don't want to keep editing my post. So sorry for double-posting. But, what do you guys think about at least around 55 spots for the 18 schools in my list? Or, around 320 in total? I think those are all probably on the low side, actually. For my schools, that's about 3 students per program. Now I just have to wonder if I'm in the top 60 of applicants to my schools (yeah yeah, different specializations blah blah blah)...

OK, so, I took down some figures from the link above and compiled it. I'll post my data below, but first, some disclaimers: - DO NOT use this information or rely on it for anything other than a way to pass the time while you obsess over results. Why? Because this is not reliable at all. Some reasons why it's not reliable: Gradcafe is not a representative community The data on Gradcafe might reflect more about website usage rather than actual results Any changes year to year could also be down to program changes, programs vary their selection practices and cohort sizes The data actually found on Gradcafe is not necessarily accurate (there are trolls, people submitting more than once, people submitting in the wrong category or date, etc.) Even if everything was accounted for, we don't know any funding information The data does not correlate with actual figures we have from schools Probably more reasons, but I can't think of them off the top of my head. So, with that out of the way, here's what I've done: I have two tables, one for all schools and for one my 18 (so the second is mostly helpful for me, but many of you are applying to the same programs, so it's slightly helpful to you). I selected English Lit and English (unspecified) PhDs ONLY. No rhetoric, no MAs. All applicants were selected, and then I looked at the data for each fall cycle. I made a note of the applicant totals for rejections, acceptances and waitlists and tallied them all. I then calculated two totals: one with the waitlist and one without, because there is no way to know if a waitlist result stayed that way (and would thus be a rejection) or if was later reposted as a rejection/acceptance (which would mean the waitlist should be discarded). Thus, the 'real' total is probably somewhere between the two. I then calculated the acceptance rate based on the two totals. I did not use any GPA or GRE stuff because it would just complicate things, and we don't know if they're good indicators anyway So, is this useful? Probably not. As stated above, the data is unreliable. Even if the data was reliable, we do not have enough market information to make any conclusions. Even if the data was reliable, we cannot know how many actual people are involved (so we have no real numbers). So the acceptance rates are probably useless (though I think it's amusing how they're several times higher than the norm). With that in mind, what CAN we discover through this? I think we can get some estimate of how many spots there are on offer at these schools. Leaving aside the fact that not all acceptances on the board are actual acceptances, so assuming that they're mostly correct: every correct acceptance on the board is one actual spot offered during that year. While one person might have collected several acceptances, one would assume that this person only goes to one school and that the other schools would offer the spot to the next person. The issue is that some acceptances might actually be the same spot (person A gets two offers, selects offer 1, offer 2 is then given to person B, who accepts). There is simply no way of knowing with the data that we have, so all we have is a very rough estimate. Perhaps this issue could be addressed somewhat by only looking at the first batches of responses, rather than any offers given in March or April. That would mean going school by school, something I did not do this time because it would take too long for what is ultimately a useless activity. Anyway, the data from the last 3 years indicates that there is kind of a trend in totals, so perhaps we can expect similar numbers this year. So, here's what I got, now please overanalyze so we have things to discuss:

Emory does interviews for English apparently, yes. No idea about Spanish, though I know two people who applied to Emory Spanish so I’ll let you know if I hear anything.

I have Emory down around the 17th for interview notifications. Chicago a week later. More or less. Just so we can stress out when the days roll by.

That’s true, though it’s a sentiment I would be careful with. Ultimately, PhD is a job, and you’re not going to get slong with everyone, much less your ‘bosses’. It’s a job that involves a lot of independent work, and you get to have some say on who you work with. Most importantly, scholars move around and have varying availability anyway. It’s definitely something to consider, but I don’t think I would let it sway my choice unless it was down to selecting comparable programs. Cohorts can be more important to personal well-being, after all.

It would be awesome to get personality fit advice, but unfortunately it’s unlikely to have an advisor who can answer those questions with such detail. Even then, hard to say if that information would be helpful in actually getting in. Who knows who is reading what and when. For instance, I asked two professors for sdvice and showed them my lists last year. One of them told me to be very careful about mentioning a particular scholar because even though they were top of their field, they were abrasive and most of their department despised them. The other one I asked about their own school and they told me not to mention a certain scholar but would not say why. At first I thought it was because they were lesving but they are still there. Who knows.

Anyone want to try and draw some conclusions from this? I tried but it’s a lot to work with, I might try again tomorrow.

I’ve seen some noted on program websites (sometimes prominently, sometimes very much the opposite). Sometimes they’re specific (I think Rutgers is one?), and others are general. But I think most are not stated. Just got to wait it out and see, I guess.

It is my understanding that all doctoral students sponsored for a J1 visa in the US do so as research scholars, which means they have a maximum stay of 5 years. While that theoretically aligns with most doctoral programs, many of them require more time to be completed (and some offer funding packages for 6 years already). Does anyone what happens if you need to extend your stay (and the program is willing to extend) but you have reached this limit? Some possibilities I have considered (with absolutely no knowledge to back this up): - Apply for an extension (apparently there are some circumstances in which they are granted but I don’t know if they apply in this case) - Get an Academic Training extension? - Apply for an F1 in the final year? (Assuming it is possible, and would be shitty for eliminating J2 work potential) - Finish the program long-distance? (I know some students can write their dissertations away from campus sometimes) - Terminate the PhD (I guess least likely? But hey, who knows?) Also, is it possible that a program that offers a 6 year package would refuse to sponsor a J1 because of this issue?

Are credit hours calculated on a weekly basis? Sorry, I’m an international student, not sure what the specifics are. edited: figured it out, thanks

I've been looking at some adjunct positions and some of them advertise their compensation as being XX amount per hour. Now, since these are part-time positions, I'm wondering what this actually means. Is this XX for every hour taught? XX for every hour of class + office time? Or is it XX for every hour of a standard part-time contract (so 20-25h a week)? Perhaps it changes based on the institution, but I was wondering if anyone knew what the standard was.

I mean, last year’s email said the same thing and they have consistently sent notifications in late January to early February I believe.

That was my thinking. They sent the same email last year on January 4th, so I would expect acceptances in about 3 weeks and rejections in just over 4.

Reviving this because I just got an email from Chicago saying they received my application (over a month after I submitted it and 2 weeks after the deadline). Anyone else? OR DOES THIS MEAN SOMETHING?!

I was in the same boat last year. Admittedly, by the time I left I already had implied rejections but all of my main responses came when I was alone. As I said, I’m big on repression so I don’t enjoy swimming around in the misery and talking about it with others, especially since I already knew everything people said (it does not reflect on you as a person/scholar, etc). It will be tough but you will have other things to do, and if not, setting aside a show to marathon wouldn’t hurt (unless it’s Gilmore Girls with the scene where Paris gets accepted everywhere, or Gossip Girl, where these privileged rich kids get placed at the Ivies of their choice and make faces at NYU). As for feedback, I was too scared of asking for it. When I reapplied I wanted to contact some schools, especially the one that offered me an MA spot, to figure out what went well/badly. I was very much discouraged from doing that by an IRT advisor.

Oh, of course. I don’t have a spreadsheet but I made a note on my calendar of when to expect (good) news from my programs, and it does seem like some people will be receiving good news in less than a month.

It does! I think our differences are indeed due to our interests. My specific interests are too specific to find anyone who works on them, but the broader fields are much more established which makes it hard to find someone who is in those fields but doing work relevant to my own. Then again, perhaps that’s not needed and just general viccinity is good.

That's rough, I'm impressed you've shown such perseverance! But that POI love sounds amazing, hopefully this year works out with them in your corner!

Congratulations! Though wow, that's such a quick turnaround!

Funny because that's basically the same as what I did only I made a meal of talking about it. You reminded me that general inclinations and culture were another thing (as you said, theory at Chicago and Penn, Af-Am at Rutgers et al, psychoanalysis at GW, etc.). One thing I wonder about is how specifically did you identify fit? I mean, it's rare to find someone who works your exact works with your exact methodology (otherwise what would be the point of doing it yourself?). Did you identify some in methodology and some in text, or only applied to places where you find someone who did both? What if they're in the field but not working on exactly the same things? Where do you draw the line?

I'm not going to get into details with mine because I'm a little paranoid but, the process I went through was this: - Go program by program and look at faculty profiles, write down every name that I recognized as being in my field or who seemed to work on things related to my work (African-Americanists, anyone who worked on my specific authors, theories, time periods, methodologies), as well as anyone whose work seemed interesting (as in, am I compelled to read their work even if it doesn't entirely or at all align with my own) - With that list, I go to my library search and look for their work, focusing on anything published recently if possible. I download every article that seems relevant or interesting. I was away from the library so could not access physical books. I SHOULD have written down the names of key books, but did not. If anyone did not have anything relevant/interesting, I removed them from consideration. - Go through and organize all the articles (over 1000). Then go through again and select all those that seem particularly relevant to my work, separate them. - Go through these lists, if a program does not have at least 3 scholars who have made it this far, or if the article list seems bare and there are no articles that are amazingly relevant, I removed the school from consideration - Start skimming/reading articles, take notes and highlight anything that is especially relevant to my work. - Go back to the programs and universities and do some searching for any institutes, characteristics or anything else that seems relevant - With all of the prep done, it's time to write the fit-specific part of my SoP. So, that was my prep. What did I actually talk about? - My specific interests are quite... specific. So no one has really been working about it. If anyone came close, I mentioned it. - If anyone had done work combining my methodology and textual focus, I mentioned it. - If anyone did one or the other, but specifically using authors or theories or texts I would work on, I mentioned it. - Sometimes the above wasn't there, or only one person. In those cases there was usually a lot of people working within one of the fields I'm interested in, but not specifically on my authors/theories. If so, I mentioned it. - Sometimes I mentioned someone's work generally. However, I usually tried to pinpoint specific articles or quotes. Firstly because I'm afraid of generalizing or getting something wrong, since it's impossible to know everything a scholar has written or is interested in, for every scholar we want to work with. I tried to avoid getting too focused on specific arguments, and instead on how the questions they were asking or their expertise as demonstrated by their work could guide my own. - Faculty fit was the biggest part, but I also discussed any institutes or centers or certificate programs, when relevant. - For 500 word SoPs, I sometimes only mentioned 2 faculty members. I usually aimed for 3, but other times I discussed quite a lot more, maybe even 6-7. I obviously did not go in depth, and sometimes mentioned faculty as a unit, but always focusing on ow each one will be helpful in different ways. - I usually avoided focusing on big names, but generally tried to at least mention them. If the program recently hired anyone in the field, I mentioned it. -Oh, I forgot that I also looked at recent course offerings and mentioned them when relevant, same goes for anything of note in their library collections. Ultimately, every app was it's own thing, but this was my process and how I wound up using it. Since fit is so important, I'm curious how others have approached it.