urbanfarmer

I agree with much of what @Rootbound said, as someone who is also at an institution with a really strong, active union. Not only has my union worked tirelessly to push for our best interests (and insure that, each year, we receive fair pay-- among other things), but it's been a huge part of enabling me to really understand how and to what extend the faculty in my department are on the side of the graduate students. The ways in which they support union activity full-heartedly and without question has made it clear that the faculty really see us as workers deserving of fair and equitable treatment. Seeing messages and actions of support from the faculty in my department has truly been a joy. Also, as another thing that's worth considering-- you might think about how supporting (or not supporting) unions aligns with what a department says their philosophical and material commitments are. Do they preach Marxism and diversity, and then try to quiet union activity? Those sorts of discrepancies are worth paying attention to, as they'll likely inflect the department culture.

The program I'm in takes between 6-8 students a year, and I think this is the perfect size. It's large enough that there can be a real community of grad students (in your own cohort, if you're lucky enough to get along, and in the department generally)... but it's not so large that professors don't know who you are, or have to split their time among too many students (especially for bigger-name profs, who are asked to be on a lot of people's committees).

What I hear you saying is: school A is a better fit for me, but I'd really rather live where school B is (and going there won't tank my academic life). A lot of conventional wisdom points to school A. However, I don't think I can stress enough how emotionally and mentally hard being in a PhD program is. I'm happy with my school, program, advisors, cohort, work, etc etc. I have (very close) friends outside of school that I see regularly, I eat well and work out, my physical health is solid, and I have no chronic mental health issues. I like where I live, for the most part. Even with all that-- keeping abreast of burnout, exhaustion, stress, and bouts of anxiety is tough. And, I'm sure you've read all the statistics, and heard all the stories: what I'm saying is more the norm than not, in terms of grad students having serious struggles with mental health, at a rate far above the population at large. It's hard to give advice to a complete stranger over the internet, because you know nothing about them as a person. But I guess my piece of wisdom is simply: don't underestimate the power of your happiness outside of school, whatever that means to you (of course, choosing a program where you feel like you might not fit well could also have negative effects on your mental health). Being happy with (or at least not actively disliking) your day-to-day life will make your work better, and there's no reason to become miserable just to get a degree, if you don't have to. Remember, this is essentially just a job. Hopefully one you like, and find some fulfillment in, but it's a job all the same.

I know someone who applied there this year and was rejected-- but they got an exceptionally kind email. Maybe your email rejection got lost, if you're only seeing this on their portal or whatever.

I'm sure this other list has a lot of good questions, but here's some other-- potentially not as obvious-- things to ask that (in no particular order): 1. Where do students live? (esp important for bigger cities-- get an idea of what neighborhoods you should scout for housing) 2. Ask students what professors' reputations are. Not academically, but as someone to work with. For instance, I have a friend who's chair is infamous for disappearing for weeks and weeks at a time (not literally-- just not responding to emails, or being really hard to meet with). My friend likes the hands-off approach, but if you're someone who wants more guidance, this would be a good thing to know. Alternately, I work with someone who is infamous for giving intense, endless writing critique. I don't mind this, and it's made me a better writer, but I know other people have a hard time with the extent of his criticism. It's important to work with good scholars, but also important to work with people whose advising style meshes with what you need. 3. If you have any particular health concerns (and probably even if you don't), I'd suggest asking students what their take on their healthcare plan is. This is everything from doctor choice, what medications are covered (and how much of them), availability of mental health services (seriously! don't underestimate the importance of having a therapist! this is a stressful time!), etc. 4 . Ask them how many hours a week they spend working. Ask how they've managed a work/life balance. Also, if at all possible (and I realize that sometimes it's not!), I'd suggest talking to people in person rather than over email. Over email, I think you'll probably get a rosier picture... not because they're hiding a dark secret, but just because it's easier to let your guard down when you're face-to-face with someone.

Also, as a general piece of advice, you might want to apply to some MA programs first. It sounds like you're still in the process of totally figuring out what you want to specialize in, and MA programs are great for that, since you get some more time to develop the depth, etc. that you say you feel like you're currently lacking. Good luck!

@karamazov I'd guess that most of your professors are probably thrilled you're going to be attending grad school, and will happily accommodate your absences. So talk to them first! Give them the days you'll be missing, and tell them why, and why it's important to you to go. They'll probably say something like, "congratulations! Have fun!" But if it turns out to be a problem (if, for some reason, you have a professor that says, "if you miss one more day, I'll dock your grade!"), then you can adjust your plans accordingly (maybe, say, only going to the visiting days for the PhD programs you're interested in, and not the MA ones). And in terms of going to the scheduled days-- I'd suggest going if at all possible, because you'll have more opportunities for interaction with students and faculty than you would at another time. However, if you really can't make it, it's not a big deal. Most programs are happy to work with you (and if they're rude about it, that's probably a sign by itself!). Also, something to consider in terms of going over Spring Break: the program you're visiting might have the same break, so there won't be many people around campus.

Here's some tips for people freaking out about interviews: 1. Know that they're trying to get you to talk about things, not trying to trip you up. As such, be prepared to talk about your research, but don't feel like it's a quiz. 2. As someone else said, feel free to admit that you haven't read something/don't know much about something. However, the best thing to do is not let that "I'm not sure, I haven't read that" end the conversation or question. Instead, try to turn the conversation back around into something you either DO know, or turn it into a relevant question. i.e. "You know, I actually haven't read much Foucault, so I don't think I'm confident speaking about his ideas of biopower. However, I have found myself really interested in X, who says Y-- and you're right that I should dive into Foucault to see what he can add to my thoughts about Z." Or, "I haven't read Frankenstein in a while, but I think you're right that it could open up an interesting question in my work. For instance, I'm really interested in... Thanks for the recommendation!" With the above, if someone asks you something that you REALLY know nothing about-- say they mention a theorist or author that you've never heard of-- ask for clarification! Say something like, "I don't know Jane Doe's work. What's her take on eco criticism?" Then, use their answer to similarly make connections like I said above. 3. Don't feel like you need to have a definitive answer. Places where they ask you something that you haven't thought through yet are a great place to (1) say where you thinking IS at, but then follow that up by saying (2) this is why you want to be in a PhD program. Great phrasing would be something like, "I really do think that the relationship between gender and the publishing industry has had a huge impact on the reception of certain authors. I think to get to a definitive answer, however, I'll have to do some archival work, which I haven't had the time to do while in my M.A. That's one of the reasons I'm really excited about the prospect of being in your program-- you have such a great collection of early publishing records, and I love the work that Dr. X has done with them." 4. Have some questions prepared to ask them, if they give you the opening to do so. Even if you don't really have any questions, have some-- saying "I don't have any questions" can make you seen uninterested. These questions, though, should be higher-order questions about the program, and not nitty-gritty. i.e. DO ask about recent placement, but don't ask about specific stipend questions (unless they give you the space to do so). DO ask about the availability of funding for conference travel, but don't ask about how much. After you're admitted, you can ask about details, or about the city or housing or whatever. Right now, you're just trying to get in the door. 5. The best advice-- for interviews, and for campus visits when y'all get to that stage-- is to fake it 'til ya make it. It's ok to say that you're nervous if you are! But also, act confident, sociable, and kind, no matter how you feel inside. I used to teach speech, and I'd tell my kids that everyone starts to feel nervous before public speaking. That's a normal, healthy, bodily response. The key is to turn those nerves into energy, rather than thinking that they mean you're going to fail, and letting them shut you up.

I think any professor will be (or should be!) understanding of financial issues-- no matter how decent your stipend is, there are very few stipends that are good enough that no one needs to be mindful of money. In all the seminars I took, there was always (or almost always) a number of different editions present. Whether it was newer/older, or a different publisher of the classic, etc etc-- it was sometimes annoying, but no one thought it was a big deal. Also, I know a few people in my program who are really on top of checking things out of the library, either at the school, or from one of the city libraries. If they really like the text and/or think they might write on it, they buy it, but otherwise they save a lot of money (and space!) by not buying books they'll only read once.

Hey, I made a very similar switch between my M.A. and starting my PhD. I've continued to have a foot in the door in terms of the earlier period, and my project will in some ways be influenced by that earlier period. A few pieces of advice: 1. What @WildeThing said about making it seem like the logical next step in your research is correct. Make the question you're asking so compelling that committees can't help but agree that it is important that you continue moving forward in time. Don't just say "I've used x y and z to examine Keats, and now I want to use those to look at W. H. Auden"-- instead, narratavize exactly how one must necessarily lead to the other in your intellectual path. 2. While a project that "bridges" the two periods could be interesting, you need to find a "home" period to work in. Think of your work as being "inflected" by the other (i.e. you could write about how Romanticism inflects some of the 20th c stuff you're interested in)... you can't do both wholesale. The reason you can't do both is because hiring, by and large, is still done in very strict period-place bundles. So do you want to go on the market as a Romanticist, or a 20th c scholar? 3. About the above-- don't propose something that you aren't actually willing to write. Making a strong proposal that incorporates the two periods will be harder, and so trying to make it work if you aren't all-in wouldn't be worth the trouble. Just propose what you want to do, if you want to make a move. 4. You mention modernism, and also 20th/21st century stuff. This might just be shorthand for whatever you're thinking about, but I'd really zero in on what defines the place you want to go. T.S. Eliot is obviously different scholarship than Anne Carson is different than the beats. 5. The idea of deciding once you get there is fine... the only disadvantage is that it'd be hard to cultivate the relationships/take the classes/do the extra things you'd generally want to be doing in your first few years spanning the distance between two very different sets of scholarships. Generally, when you start, you'd be already talking to the people you want to work with, and taking classes that you think will help you out in that area, then going to talks/conferences/reading groups/etc with that scholar/group of scholars. Trying to play it both ways will be difficult (although not impossible!). 6. Maybe just find some scholars that you think you'd like to work with in contemporary stuff, and send out a few emails. Be like "I've done work in Keats but because of reasons abc I'm finding myself drawn to X, and I've found your scholarship on it very compelling. I'm thinking about applying to school A, and am really excited about the program. (and then ask some questions about their scholarship/etc)." Then, in their responses, gauge the reactions. Are they excited about your ideas? Seem a bit wary about the switch? You can probably learn a lot! (But don't ask them outright if switching is ok-- you don't want to raise a red flag on your own)

As everyone is getting settled into a decision, exciting but also anxiety-inducing among all the talk of a collapsing job market, I thought I'd share this really lovely piece that celebrates some of the great things about grad school: http://avidly.lareviewofbooks.org/2012/11/13/love-in-the-ruins-or-should-i-go-to-grad-school/

The awkwardness of these visits is probably good practice for how awkward a lot of academic events are-- it might eventually be easier once you know some people, but you're still expected to talk to strangers and mill about with small talk (think guest lectures or seminars, round tables, interdisciplinary events, conference meet n greets, etc etc). Anyways, the best advice I can give you is just to completely fake it (until you make it? hopefully? I'm a bartender and this worked eventually). Everyone likes people who are friendly and who seem interested in them, so even when you have that terrible, awkward, "what the hell am I supposed to say to all these other strangers who are completely avoiding eye contact" moment and you'd really rather leave the whole thing-- walk up to someone and make some inane comment about the room or weather or whatever is around you, and then ask them questions about themselves and/or something professional (and act really engaged with their answers). Seem confident and at ease even if you feel nervous or awkward (they'll never know!). At the least, it eases the awkwardness of social situations, and at best can open up the door to getting a feel for a professor beyond how they respond to questions, or getting some useful/interesting information from other students.

You can definitely take a conference paper and eventually expand it into an article. The article can later be modified/changed/etc into a book chapter. None of this is necessary, of course (a conference paper might be only ever that), but once you get to know someone's work well, you'll see that most scholars are often working through ideas in this way. It makes sense-- you often might not get an idea quite right on the first try, but will get it to the form you want as you keep working at it. Alternately, if you're working on a theoretical problem, you might see someone using different texts/frameworks for that problem over a period of time, going through the same working-out process until they eventually publish a book (or, occasionally, a single very important article) that has a crystalized version of that problem/etc. As for the other way-- article to presentation-- that's a bit less common, if only because there's some assumption that if you're publishing something on, say, Emily Dickinson, most Emily Dickinson scholars (who, presumably, would be most interested in your presentation) will be keeping up on the current issues of whatever that journal is, and it'd be a bit strange for you to chop it down and repeat something they've already read. However, what I said above still applies: if you're working through a particular thought or issue, (say, looking at the materiality of Dickinson's manuscripts or something), you can work through whatever you published into a new form that is refined or changed or takes up different material or the same material differently than before. Hope that helps!

UIC also has a "program for writers" in their English department-- I think (although don't quote me on this, as I'm not a creative writer myself) their program is fairly heavy on critical stuff.

As someone whose popped into this forum from time to time, and gotten invested in y'all's decisions, I'd love to see someone make a "final decisions" thread so we can all see where everyone is ending up!