paddington5

Very fair questions--thanks for the update on Berkeley, too. I admit I have no personal experience with Berkeley, only that which I have heard from both professors and fellow graduate students who applied two years ago, now. I am glad to hear that they are opening up the program to external M.A.s--how is your status in the program/# of credits once you enter? And I just checked U of M--their standing is that they give equal consideration to M.A. students, but acceptance does not guarantee different standing in the program--about a year ago, when I considered them, the website said something rather different. But thanks for catching me, I totally stand corrected! Still, in my experience there are some programs that do B.A. to PhD, and the positions for external M.A.s are fewer. U of Maryland, I know for a fact, claims that next year they will only be accepting students with B.A.s to their PhD programs. And places, like IU--Bloomington (the place I'm attending for the fall), claim that there are fewer spots for external M.A.s. As to publication and teaching, I tried to be very careful in saying "perhaps teaching" and "possibly publication"--to be honest, I don't think teaching experience or publication in a tier 2 or tier 1 journal will harm your application's success; in fact, I think it could help you. Then again, like you said, these factors are not necessarily the deciding factors. The writing sample, SoP, and letters of rec will ultimately determine your fate. However, students applying to top programs with M.A.s in hand also need to realize that everyone else applying with M.A.s have experience in graduate coursework, advanced research, fairly high GRE/Lit scores, etc. Distinguishing your application, in both the quality of your research and your professional experience, can greatly help you when applying. You're exactly right to quote the phrase, "quality over quantity," though. I believe, however, that this phrase can be applied to conferences and, if you feel so inclined, publications: I honestly think that really good, competitive conferences, even in your M.A. program, will help you as an applicant and as a scholar, in general. In terms of publications, I have not felt inclined to publish either (I also got the advice to hold out until it's something I really want to put out there in a top tier journal), but I know of several people who have quality publications--trust me, that factor certainly didn't hurt them. In all honesty, it really helped them. Teaching, though, can be sticky, it's true. If you spend too much time in your SoP or on your CV discussing your teaching experience, it may give off the impression that you're less focused on quality research. Then again, some schools really focus on teaching--not many of them seem to be in the "top 25," but I'm guessing that not everyone who is applying to programs next year will be interested in going to Research I schools. I guess what your questions really point to is the fact that, whether you have a B.A. or a M.A. in hand when you apply, you just really, really need to know the programs to which you're applying. For some, conferences, teaching, publications, might put you above the rest; for others, a kick ass writing sample will beat out all other factors. That being said, congrats on Berkeley--way to be #1

I'm going into one of my top-choice PhD programs with an external M.A., as well as many fine folks on this forum, and here are some of my (possibly inconsequential) thoughts: I think that there are several advantages and disadvantages to getting a M.A. before the PhD. Cons? There are several "top" programs from which you'll be excluded or discouraged to apply (U of M--Ann Arbor and UC--Berkeley, for example). While having a M.A. won't absolutely bar you from these programs, they generally do not accept students unless they just have a B.A. That being said, other programs welcome students with external M.A.s, although the requirements are much higher and the competition much more advanced--not to mention you're competing for fewer positions. Your writing sample must be of near publishable quality, your GRE and LIT scores must be even higher than BA student requirements, your graduate GPA needs to be significantly high, your statement of purpose needs to be much more focused, and your research interests need to be edgier. Some schools also require a CV for their external MA applicants, where they don't require it for their B.A. applicants--this, of course, means they're looking for good conferences, university service, perhaps teaching experience, and possibly publications in a peer-reviewed journal (print or online). Then again, getting a M.A. first means that you have time to accomplish some of these things at the same time that you're receiving experience at the graduate level. And, of course, your research interests will more than likely change or at least shift to focus on a new thread or question, so you may be more sure of which programs you'll be interested in attending. I originally applied to graduate schools as a 19th centuryist, for example, and after the first week of grad school already realized I wanted to do long 18th--the faculty wasn't as strong, nor was my cohort, in 18th-century studies. While I still got the training I needed to get into the PhD program I wanted, I was really glad I got a M.A. first because otherwise I would have been stuck in a PhD program without the resources I needed for my field. One last thing, which can be a pro or a con depending on how you view it or to whom you are talking: most people with external M.A.s go for 2 years and then an additional 4 or 5 years for the PhD, making total time to the degree between 6 and 7 years, whereas B.A. to PhD programs generally take 5-6 years. Some people don't want to be in school an extra 1 or 2 years than need be, but some of the older professors will tell you that taking your time to degree is more reasonable and better for your career. It just depends, I suppose. The best news of all is that, if you have a B.A. and want to get into a "straight to PhD program," there are plenty of great programs that will let you do that. If you want to get a M.A. first, then there are still great PhD programs that will accept and support you in that case, too. So my advice (though it may not be solicited) is do what makes you comfortable, you'll be fine either way! =)

I declined offers from Maryland, Minnesota, and Colorado--Boulder today and yesterday. Hope it helps someone =0)! (I accepted IU-Bloomington)

hey I'm turning in my decline of their phd lit offer this afternoon. Best of luck!

I'm obviously not the person who originally posted, but I received an acceptance from Maryland really early in February--I think all of their info went out already (including waitlists). From what I could glean, it seems like Maryland really does look at applications holistically (I don't know how much GRE scores play a factor in the decision, but I strongly suspect that scores above the 90th percentile were common in both admitted and waitlisted applicants). I also know that faculty and program strengths seem to be in 20th century American, 18th century, and Early Modern. Also, a lot of the admitted and waitlisted students seemed to come from really strong M.A. programs. Hope this quenched your curiosity!

I agree with what a lot of the other threads have said: I specialize in British Lit of the "long" eighteenth century (c.a. 1660-1830), and it is true--there are significantly less graduate students who apply to schools with that specialty in mind--Nineteenth Century/Victorian, 20th c./Modernist, and Renaissance/Early Modern are the most (over)populated specialties in lit. programs. That being said, you'd have a significantly lower applicant pool but, as others have stated, your competition is pretty stiff, since most 18th centuryists are notoriously well-read and informed in their field (....it really is an eighteenth-century thing). While many of the areas of specialty have tight communities, the eighteenth-century community is a rather intense one (in the best sense), and as a prospective graduate student in the field there will be certain things you need to demonstrate, both in your statement of purpose (SOP) and writing sample, that the programs to which you apply will expect you to know already. As for programs, it depends on what type of "fit" you're looking for: if you want to aim for the cream of the crop, UC-Berkeley is currently ranked #1 for 18th century studies. UVA is also on there (I think at #5), and so is UChicago, Stanford, UPenn, WashU, and Indiana (#10). Most of these programs, you'll find, have an intense pool of eighteenth-century applicants. Beyond simply knowing your field, you'll most likely need to demonstrate some deftness in a foreign language (French or German are pretty standard for 18th c.), as well as have some decent work done either at conferences (if you're an MA student) or in your writing sample (BA or MA), if you hope to compete with these other applicants. Not to mention your GRE and subject test scores need to at least hit the 90th percentile (over 660 on Verbal, over 670 on the subject test)--at LEAST. Most exceed 700. On the Canadian side, University of Toronto and McGill (in Montreal) have stellar eighteenth-century programs, but they are basically the cream of the crop in Canada and equally difficult to get into. If you're looking for really strong programs that aren't necessarily in the top 10, there are several schools that are very highly ranked, and also very competitive, that have excellent eighteenth-century programs: Illinois-Urbana Champaign, UMaryland (College Park), Penn State, WUSTL etc. etc. These programs look for strong GRE scores and previous academic record, but they seem to pay a lot of attention to your writing sample, SOP, and letters of rec. Then there are, of course, really good programs that aren't exceedingly high ranked (not quite in the top 40) but that are still nationally ranked (top 100) which house really good eighteenth-century scholars: Purdue, Carnegie Mellon, Tufts, Auburn, Connecticut, etc. It all depends on what you want to do and who you want to work with. Either way, my best advice (I can't remember if you really asked for it or not, but here it is) for you is that, if you are considering applying as an eighteenth centuryist, to really pinpoint exactly what makes the field appealing to you (i.e., demonstrate what you know about where eighteenth-century studies has been and where it is now) and what critical questions you'd like to interrogate should you get the opportunity to do graduate study (i.e., demonstrate where you think eighteenth-century studies should go, in your own research, at least). And again, like others have said, don't pick a specialty because there is a seemingly higher demand for it--especially the eighteenth century because, if you don't love it, you'll be thinking "WTF" the entire time you study it. Best of luck, and should you decide to go all the way in 18th c. studies, I'd have to say: welcome to the field!

I think Minnesota's decisions are made--I received a letter (regular mail) this afternoon that informed me I was in the "top tier" of their waitlist, and I can only imagine that means they've selected their admissions, their top tiers, their second tiers, and their rejections. I would imagine letters, phone calls, e-mails, etc., will be coming out in the next couple of days/Monday. Best luck, all!

(Sorry for such late posting, but I just got on GradCafe): I received an acceptance in the Ph.D. Lit program from Purdue around the first week in March via letter. The letter was dated late February, but the letter detailed TAship funding and a fellowship offer on top of it, which may explain the earlier acceptance. But best of luck to all -- it's a rough world out there, this year especially!