onerepublic96

I lurk this sub-forum fairly regularly because I, too, wanted a PhD in English Lit before going into another field. With that being said, I feel like if you have to ask strangers on the internet about what you should do, it seems clear to me as an outsider that this isn't the right choice for you. I share that with the caveat that I don't know you and you can do whatever you'd like with your life and time; and ultimately, none of us can make that decision for you. However, you seem to have a history of posting here and waffling back and forth about getting a PhD or which sort of program you should be attending, etc.. Perhaps releasing this and moving on in another direction, one you clearly state you'd be happy in, is what's best for you. But again, we're just all strangers on the internet.

OP, you're an excellent candidate, and at another time in the history of higher ed you may have been able to pursue your dream job with confidence, but now is not that time. I'm sure you've seen all the doom-and-gloom essays on the job market, and maybe you've seen some statistics, but those things don't capture your chances in a truly accessible way. Here's a good way to measure your odds of being competitive for your dream job:
Look up the wiki page for 19th century Brit Lit jobs from last year: https://academicjobs.wikia.org/wiki/Romanticism_/_Victorian_/_19th_Century_British_2020-2021
There were 3 tenure-track jobs in the United States, one of which (Hamilton College) was an ad for a specialist in the 18th and *early* 19th c. (Anything with "visiting" in the title isn't a t-t job.) Now, these are jobs that have (presumably) filled since the new academic year has started at most schools. Google the English department faculty page for each of those 3 institutions. Both St. Norbert College and Hamilton College have faculty profiles for 18th/19th c. Brit Lit Assistant Professors. The odds are high that these were the people hired for those ads from the last cycle since Assistant Professor is the lowest rank on the tenure-track. If you look up their names on Google/the Department Faculty page, you'll see their interests match each ad to a T. 
The faculty member who took the Norbert College job has a PhD from the University of Michigan from 2018, and the one who took the Hamilton College job has a PhD from the University of Chicago in 2017. The Michigan PhD grad served as an assistant professor at another SLAC prior to taking the job at Norbert (their CV is available online).

There are 150+ English doctoral programs in the US. Many of those programs (100+?) will admit 19 c. specialists. Say there are 30-40 19th c. specialists entering the market with PhDs every year. (Very conservative estimate, as are all my estimates here.)There were 3 jobs last year, 1 of which went to a person moving from another tenure-track job (which may or may not be replaced at that institution).  The remaining 27-37, who understandably do not want to give up on their dream, roll over onto the next cohort of applicants in next year's cycle. That's why PhDs from 2017 and 2018 are entering tenure-track jobs in the 2020 cycle. Now, this process has repeated for over a decade. Some candidates might give up and seek other types of jobs after a few years. Even with that attrition, you are conservatively looking at 150+ highly qualified 19th c. specialists, all of whom will have amazing CVs, publications, etc. (given that they persevered in grad school for 5+ years knowing the brutal market) for a pool of 3 jobs (one of which went to an 18th c. specialist!) I know it's easy to equate this to the competition for grad school admissions, but it's really an apples to oranges comparison. All candidates on the market are high achieving with stellar CVs. Many have great dissertations. The kinds of distinctions search committees make to narrow down finalists can be pretty random with such a pool of candidates.
What happens to all the 19th c. specialists from Harvard, Stanford, Yale, Columbia, Cornell, Duke, Virginia, Brown, etc.? If any of those programs produced a 19th c. specialist last year, that 19th c. specialist probably didn't get a tenure-track job (I admit, the College of New Jersey, the third t-t job last year, has not updated its Faculty page). In fact, some of those programs are likely to have produced *multiple* 19th c. specialists in the last few years who haven't landed tenure-track jobs.

What you want to do with this information is your call, but I hope this answers your question of "what are my odds of getting into a prestigious PhD program" which as you say is a proxy for the question "what are my odds of landing a tenure-track job."

Who gets into prestigious PhD programs? Well, I don't meant to sound flip here, but if I'm going to be completely frank ... those who get into prestigious PhD programs are, most of the time, people who went to prestigious undergrad institutions. Yes, there's a pipeline. There is nepotism. There is an attitude of "these people have what it takes to make it because they already made it--they were able to get into a prestigious school in the first place." 
Branding is powerful. Familiarity is powerful. The "benefit of the doubt" is powerful. Confirmation bias is EXTREMELY powerful. A person with a BA from University of Scranton is a bit of an unknown quantity; a person with a BA from Amherst with a connected adviser already has the bona fides and doesn't have to prove that they'll be able to pull their weight in a seminar room at Columbia. People look at the Amherst BA's writing sample with a different attitude from the one they take with the Scranton BA's. That's just basic human psychology, and no one's immune. 
I read this book a while ago, and it explains the thought process of a lot adcom members of prestigious PhD programs (and it can be rather shocking to read, tbh): https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/01/06/new-book-reveals-how-elite-phd-admissions-committees-review-candidates
In academia, prestige breeds prestige breeds prestige, and what you do--as either an undergrad or a grad student--is looked at through the lens of which schools you went to. That's why the faculty pipeline has remained closed to many who don't fit the elite mold. When asked why faculty continue to remain so homogenous, a professor from Penn spoke frankly: "We don't want [diverse candidates]. We don't want them": https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/09/26/an-ivy-league-professor-on-why-colleges-dont-hire-more-faculty-of-color-we-dont-want-them/
Does that mean that no one from less-elite institutions can get into a prestigious school? No, of course not. We see exceptions every year. Hell, I've met many. But to be quite honest with you, they were often very, very exceptional. Just to give a rundown (and it goes without saying that this is all based on my personal anecdotal experience):
- I knew one guy who went to an unknown state school and ended up in the PhD program an at Ivy. He was extremely brilliant and hardworking and managed to publish a peer-reviewed article in a major journal by the time he was a senior in college. He also had excellent mentoring at his state school--something that is very rare in most off-the-beaten-path places where professors are less likely to be "in the research loop" (i.e. know what makes for compelling, cutting-edge research that is going to get the attention of Ivy League adcoms). 
-I knew a couple other people who managed to "trade up" from the state school where we got our master's. Neither had gone to very good undergrad institutions, but both had sky-high test scores. More importantly, both had faculty mentors who contacted faculty members at the schools to which they were applying and lobbied for them very strongly. (To give you an indication--one guy applied only to three schools, which I thought was a suicide mission at the time. But he was absolutely CERTAIN of his chances ... and sure enough, he got in to the most prestigious university in the country. Later it came out that his adviser had really pulled some strings.) 
-I know someone who started off at a community college but managed to transfer those credits to a very prestigious public university in their state. Again, they made connections at this university. Working with somewhat famous faculty, they published a paper and won a major undergrad research fellowship. They ended up getting into three Ivies. Also had sky-high (nearly perfect) test scores.
 
By contrast, most of the people I've known who went from prestigious undergrad institution to prestigious PhD institution rarely had to show the same kind of "evidence" of their brilliance. Not that they weren't brilliant--but they certainly weren't published or winning research fellowships by the time they were seniors in college. But it was accepted that they could hack it at Penn because they were already at Swarthmore, etc. 
So my main takeaway is that it's possible for people from more modest backgrounds to get into elite programs, sure. But many of those people often had to work much, much harder, score higher on those stupid tests, and make valuable connections along the way. In sum, their application package had to be near-flawless to merit serious consideration at the nation's top schools. 
Some other reading on the topic:
https://sarahkendzior.com/2015/03/06/institutional-bias-in-academia-hiring/

I had forgotten about this meme...

meanwhile.... waking up this morning to discover that the first thing I did after getting home last night was get on gradcafe and post a MAPH screed seems to be definitive proof that applying to grad school has permanently broken my brain 

For the love of sweet baby Jesus, do not accept the Chicago MAPH offer. It's not that doing so would doom your academic prospects (and no doubt you'll find examples of MAPH grads who have gone on to do well). It's that no one should pay for an MA in the humanities, let alone one as expensive as Chicago. The entire premise of that program is using Chicago's prestige to prey upon naive, enthusiastic kids who don't know they could go to another school for free. It is a deeply fucked up, shitty practice, and Chicago should be ashamed of themselves for continuing to host that travesty. 
Aside from money, you should know that it is very difficult to get the full MA experience in one year. It takes time to develop intellectually, and the very fact that Chicago tries to compact a program into a year tells you that they are not interested in your academic maturation. 

it’s about to be 3 am and I’m more than a little tipsy (A LOT! very much so!!! absolutely sloshed my friends) so take this with a grain of salt, but I’m feeling emotional about this and I would strongly encourage anyone considering the MAPH to... not. unless it works for you due to outside financial circumstances. especially do not take out loans for that degree. you - anyone considering this - you deserve more. your value is so much higher. it will not give you any advantage that you couldn’t get from taking an extra year to research and write and figure things out on your own (I’m about to be two years out from undergrad and have desperately wanted to apply since then and couldn’t before now and, you know, it wasn’t ideal, actually it sucked a whole lot, but the time away only strengthened my application - didn’t make things worse - waiting until next year is truly not the worst thing at all). beginning your academic career with enormous debt will do nothing to benefit you, and it’ll be this weight hanging over you for so many years, especially if you already have any undergraduate loans (like me!). I know it feels like an honor in some ways to be accepted by any program at a very prestigious school, but think of it as a vote of confidence that means you do not need their program in the first place! and think about how much you’ve learned during the application process, that’s honestly the most valuable thing you could bring into another round. tbh i’d do so much differently if I did this again and it’s nothing I could have learned in a masters program.
I’m sure I’ll come back to this in the morning (the real morning) and cringe a lot because I am Out Of It lbr but I also know I’ll stand by the main idea, which is: know that you deserve better. nothing they can give you is worth debt. maybe it’s right for you, given personal circumstances, but if it’s right for you, you’ll know. but don’t let them profit off uncertainty. it might offer benefits, sure, but they don’t outweigh the negatives and they aren’t much different from the benefits you could add to your application on your own outside of their ridiculously expensive program. take the acceptance as a compliment but not as your only option. 
not sure how coherent this is but. anyway. that’s my take.

They say I say By: Gerald Graff 
Write it Up By: Paul Silva
Chicago Guides to Writing By: William Germano

The issue is that what you're saying is absolutely obvious to everyone here, yet you insist on using this insufferably condescending middle-class savior tone. No one thinks they're "any different from the folks five years ago." They know they're in the same situation, accepting the same risks, resigned to the likelihood that a PhD will not be profitable because they've heard the warnings already. And they'll still do it despite the risk because, like young people for centuries, they have an ideal and inner drive they want to play out in all of its drama instead of taking the practically-optimized route. (And yes, before you say it, they know--I know--that it will probably end in disappointment and burden them with some regrets, but that's life.) The reason I and others roll our eyes--not scoff, which is a self-congratulatory way to imagine the negative reactions to your post--is because you have not figured out something unique, you have reenacted the most predictable plot in the world. Most people who have advice stemming from an extremely common experience simply give that advice in brief and move on instead of, yes, proselytizing and being dramatic when they are not immediately met with applause and effusive thanks for their effort. So, here is my own patronizing advice to you: try being more like those people who say their piece and then move on instead of the whole performance you're doing here.

Yes, with a touch of self-destructiveness (hint: never name names in an open forum) and a generous dose of defensiveness.
Your admission that you're still seeking "a job that doesn't drive [you] crazy and gives [you] the comfort to pay my mortgage, go on vacation (...eventually), and pursue [your] hobbies and interests" suggests that you're no nearer to knowing the answer to the question "What am I going to do with my life?" than when you were in graduate school.
The statement also suggests that you may not be as familiar with the demands of working in the private sector as you would have readers believe. ("Managing a team of technical writers at a Fortune 100 company" is an ambiguous job description.)
Even the most satisfying and lucrative jobs are bedeviling. Home ownership is much more than paying a mortgage -- it is also utilities, insurance, taxes, dealing with neighbors, project management, maintenance, and deferred maintenance. Vacations are more and more deferred and increasingly disrupted by work. Hobbies and interests are hard to maintain as workdays lengthen and workweeks expand. 401k's alone may not earn enough money for one's retirement. And, if you haven't discovered already, a cult of personality in corporate America can be at least as corrosively soul crushing as one in the Ivory Tower--especially if that cult has set up shop in HR. IMO, your overall argument would have been stronger had you bumped that infamous thread with a post in which you outlined the steps you took to remedy what you found wrong in your department during your time at Ohio State.
What committees did you join? How did you seek to remedy bad relationships with professors? Were your experiences actually as commonplace as you allege? What kind of training did you get for going on the job market? Were you a competitive job applicant with knowledge of in-demand fields or did you have the misfortune of specializing in the wrong fields at the wrong time? Do you bear any responsibility for your sour relationships with the professors you named? I also think your comments would be less controversial if you had offered guidance on how to manage expectations and be prepared to pivot.
 

This whole post comes across as just another form of proselytizing. I am truly sorry that academia disappointed you as it will many others, but please consider that the people here are intelligent enough to question these issues without needing to watch someone sell their brand in a TED talk. 

Hang in there! In my cycle, I got into my top choice off the waitlist. ? These things happen! 

Guys!!! I am in at UT-Austin!!!I cannot CANNOT CANNOT believe

This was me. I went 0/7 first cycle and 6/10 my second. It's a frustrating reality that presentation counts for so much. As much as I want to believe the quality of my thinking developed between cycles, it was mostly just how I presented my ideas that mattered. 

Michigan decisions are being made today. Good luck to everyone!

Aw thank you! I am totally still traumatised from my own cycle, but also incredibly grateful for where I ended up, because I really love it here. I can't even imagine how much tougher this new cycle has been, emotionally, mentally, etc., so I just wanted to cheer everyone on, because every single person here deserves to get into a great program. Wishing you the best of luck! Especially with Michigan, since I'm a little biased, haha. Please feel free to reach out if the stars align and you end up coming here! ?

thank you sm! it’s my dream programme, will definitely be reapplying even if the stars don’t align this time round :’)

Aw thank you! I am totally still traumatised from my own cycle, but also incredibly grateful for where I ended up, because I really love it here. I can't even imagine how much tougher this new cycle has been, emotionally, mentally, etc., so I just wanted to cheer everyone on, because every single person here deserves to get into a great program. Wishing you the best of luck! Especially with Michigan, since I'm a little biased, haha. Please feel free to reach out if the stars align and you end up coming here! ?

Aw thank you! I am totally still traumatised from my own cycle, but also incredibly grateful for where I ended up, because I really love it here. I can't even imagine how much tougher this new cycle has been, emotionally, mentally, etc., so I just wanted to cheer everyone on, because every single person here deserves to get into a great program. Wishing you the best of luck! Especially with Michigan, since I'm a little biased, haha. Please feel free to reach out if the stars align and you end up coming here! ?

I am SHAKING oof
(also I j want to say I've been seen your journey since last year and your posts have been v inspiring, literally was the happiest I've ever been for a total stranger when I saw you got off the waitlist :'))

Michigan decisions are being made today. Good luck to everyone!

Michigan decisions are being made today. Good luck to everyone!

Michigan decisions are being made today. Good luck to everyone!

The meeting is today! I expect decisions should come sometime next week.

Michigan decisions are being made today. Good luck to everyone!