FreakyFoucault

Yeah, I'm struggling to weigh that decision, too. I've saved enough to make student loan payments through August (no small feat, I might add), but my rational center is telling me that it'd be idiotic to forgo three months of paychecks. I guess it depends on how bad things get. I figure I could probably squeeze out another month or two if I were to duct tape a bottle of Jameson to the underside of my desk, but it only gets you so far.

Hi, everyone -- long-time lurker here, finally coaxed out of the shadows! 
I was fortunate enough to do well (97th percentile) on the Lit subject test, but my after-graduation circumstances made preparing much easier. I decided against law school pretty late in my senior year (triggering a quarter-life crisis, but that's for another day), so applying for a PhD as an undergrad was impossible. Instead, I found a job in health care that involved a fair amount of downtime I used for self-study. It also helped that my hours were from 2:30 pm to 10 pm, so I had mornings free.
About ten months before I took the test last October, on the recommendation of my English advisor, I bought all the Norton anthologies (English and American -- there went like two weeks pay). Since my undergrad English department was small, and I (initially) triple majored, then double majored, and studied abroad, I didn't have time to take every single English course, so the anthologies played a huge role in bringing me up to speed in literature that I completely missed. What helped the most, though, was taking copious notes (~250 pages) on everything that I encountered in the anthologies. The process of underlining important passages, copying them over to my computer, and detailing as much as I could in a Word doc vastly improved my comprehension of the anthologized works, some of which appeared on my test. It also helped with identification, but, as others have noted, that aspect of the test has been eclipsed by what ETS vaguely calls "Literary Analysis" [read: comprehension]. I also regularly reviewed these notes, so most of the material stayed in my head. In addition, I found that studying for the verbal section of the general GRE went a long way toward giving me a solid understanding of how ETS asks "analytical" questions. The content is obviously different, but the style of question-asking on both tests is, in my opinion, similar.
In terms of test materials, I used the notorious Princeton Review, the awful REA books, and six past tests that I found in the tenebrous reaches of the Internet. Like others here, I think the Princeton Review book is probably worthwhile to read but not terribly relevant anymore. Neither the frequency nor format of identification questions (i.e. those block quote sections followed by a list of titles) on PR's practice test reflects the modern iteration in any sense. Still, I found some of PR's comprehension and grammar-analysis questions useful, so if you've got the time and money, buying the book wouldn't hurt. On the other hand, REA's book is inaccurate, aesthetically repulsive, poorly bound, and fucking dumb in all respects, so I wouldn't bother. The other real practice tests I found ranged in utility. I'm still shocked at how identification-heavy the early tests were (especially '82). Again, if you have the time, I'd complete those tests (under time constraints, perhaps to learn how to pace yourself and get a feel for comp questions), but you must be mindful that the modern test, as Pezpoet said, is more or less all comprehension. Nevertheless, considering the dearth of prep materials, I'd take what you can get (except REA). Ironically, the test ETS offers online is probably the closest to the actual version (although, looking at it now, it seems a little out of date). 
Ten months passed, and after having learned a ton of literature, crammed a lot of titles/characters/authors, and made offerings to the Pantheon, there I found myself in a cramped lecture hall, butterflies a-flutter. Luckily, one of my friends was taking the chemistry test, so it was a huge help to see a friendly face. We joked around like idiots for a half hour, which helped lighten my anxiety. If you can arrange to take the test with a friend, I'd do it. At any rate, despite having studied for nearly a year, I still found the actual test a sordid affair. Somebody on GC once said that it was "akin to being mugged." Couldn't have said it better myself. An hour or so in, my pacing was fine until I got bitch slapped by a really long Middle English passage, and thereafter I went into survival mode. The test over, my friend and I drank all the beer we could find, agreed that English and Chemistry are stupid, and wondered what exactly ETS does with our broken dreams and $4000 test fees. I duly received my score 5 weeks later and found out that I did better than expected. It's quite possible that fight-or-flight nerves simply made a difficult situation worse. I'm sure our hunter-gatherer ancestors would get a good chuckle out of that. 
As to whether the subject score matters, I have no idea. My uncontroversial, unoriginal guess is that the general GRE (verbal/AW) matters more for first-cut, and then maybe subject test carries a little weight later on, especially for deciding between comparable candidates. But I have no solid evidence (empirical or anecdotal) to back this up, so my conclusion is do the best you can, and if your score isn't too high, don't give up. If I were on the committee, I'd put much, much, much (did I say much?) more weight on writing sample, SOPs, and rec letters. As we all know, a test that attempts to grill undergrads on literature ranging over 4000 years is equal parts absurd and sad. I hope it's done away with in the future. I don't feel proud that I scored well. Rather, I feel lucky that I got a version of the test that somewhat matched what I studied, and also that I kind of learned how ETS asks questions. That said, it was simply a joy to read the Norton anthologies, and I'd recommend doing so regardless of whether you're taking the test (if you have time). 
That's all I got, and if you have any questions, feel free to PM me! And good luck to all of you on your admissions! 

“for-in-that-sleep-of-death-what-dreams-may-come-when-we-have-shuffled-off-this-mortal-grad-applications-coil-must-give-us-pause” shellacked!

Bureaucratically shellacked! 

I have heard a range of perspectives on the GRE. Some told me that the Q score doesn't matter but that a 163+ V was an implicit requirement for admission. Some said it was the percentile that mattered and not the number. Others said "just don't raise eyebrows," and others suggested getting both scores as high as possible. This past application season, I saw some programs that had a minimum Q requirement in the low 140s, and at least one program that I applied to had a requirement for a combined Q/V score (i.e. 311 or something like that). Other programs didn't post any GRE information at all (occasionally explaining why, although not always) and some posted the average Q & V scores of past successful applicant pools. 
The GRE, no matter how good, cannot compensate for a weak SOP & WS and mediocre letters. But as @trueblueDetroiter rightfully points out, how your score is evaluated depends on your total application package and how both the graduate school and the department view the GRE. Sometimes, the graduate school will have score requirements that are more rigid than the English program itself. Sometimes that info is easy to find and sometimes it isn't clear. I'd guess (although I have no insider knowledge) that there are also some programs that have score thresholds for whatever reason, which (again) may or may not be clearly explained. 
If it helps you to know, I had a 165V and a 144Q and got 5 offers from good places, one that is an absolute perfect fit in terms of resources/support/faculty/etc. So, a low 140s won't necessarily hinder someone from getting into a great program. But there are many successful applicants on these threads who have (much) higher scores and do equally well with applications. In short, I'm not sure anyone on the applicant-side of the process can fully know how the GRE plays into the larger (and VERY nuanced) application process. 
 

LIFE IS TOO SHORT TO WORK IN A DEAD-END CAREER YOU DESPISE!!!!!!!!! 
Sorry I had to scream that at Billy Mays volume, but it’s too important not to yell at the top of one’s lungs. 
With all due respect to your dad, he’s flat-out wrong. That’s the attitude of people who despise their jobs and careers. If YOU don’t think law is right for you, then it ISN’T!! I applaud you for taking the absolutely terrifying but necessary-for-your-soul approach of hitting the reset button. 
Listen, I’m not saying that practical realities shouldn’t be considered. After graduation, I needed to pay the bills, so I got a job that, while boring and utterly irrelevant to what I want to do, is nevertheless convenient in the short term (good hours for me and decent pay). Am I happy about it? Well, let me put it this way— I’m not jumping for joy when I get to work every day. But am I anhedonic at this point? No. Though my job sucks, it keeps me out of debtor’s prison, puts food on the table, exposes me to the business world (however I’m not impressed), and gave me sufficient time to prepare for grad school (both as an applicant and a person). Thankfully, I won’t be doing it much longer. But it played an important role in my life these last few years. 
I can’t promise that hitting the reset button will work out for you on the first try. I sincerely hope that you aren’t shut out, and I’ll be crossing all crossable appendages for your success. But if this cycle doesn’t go the way you wanted, then hit the reset button again and hustle your way to happiness. You might have to take a stopgap measure (like I did) that doesn’t provide much in the way of short-term happiness. But if you keep looking toward the long game, and work your ass off, I’d venture to bet that you’d have a good probability for success.
The most important lesson, however, is that you’re the one who defines your own happiness and success. I don’t care how trite this sounds, but DON’T GIVE UP and DON’T allow yourself to become content with misery or bitterness. I’ve seen both destroy many people, but you don't have to allow yourself to be destroyed! There’s no limit to how many times you can hit reset. Life’s too short not to. 

I speak for everyone here when I say that I, FreakyFoucault, of the Grad Café, by the utter lack of authority not vested in me, hereby declare, in the most solemn of asseverations, that you, @Warelin, also of the Grad Café, are forthwith granted tenure at the institution of your choosing!! 
Have a nice career! 

Welcome, @CatBowl! 
I wanted to echo the many good suggestions here and, in particular, add my 2¢ about the number of applications you plan to submit. I, like @Warelin, applied to 16 schools. The cost of app fees, GRE, and GRE prep came out to ~ $2300. I had a job then, but it was about a month's pay (actually two month's after my student-loan bills), so the cost was not one I bore lightly. To put this amount in perspective, I was accepted to 3 out of 16 universities -- a 19% success rate -- even with having >95% GRE percentiles, SoPs that I fine tuned for about six months, letters from profs whom I knew very well (I just spoke at one of their retirement parties), and an essay that I proofread so often that I could likely recite it today by memory. Yet, I still received rejection letters from 13 schools! My point is that luck and unseen variables still play a large role in this crazy process. All things being equal, I would've been shut out had I not applied to those three schools that took a chance on me. 
But let's return to my investment for a moment. $2300 is a lot of money. If you're accepted to just one school, however, the potential ROI is astounding. Tuition waiver included, my program will be investing around $500,000 in me over six years. I know math isn't loved by many here (me included), but the return-on-investment yield is jaw-dropping:
ROI = (Gain from Investment - Cost of Investment) / Cost of Investment
ROI = (500k - 2.3k) / 2.3k = 216.4%
I agree with @Kilos that spending several thousand dollars on applications is absurd. But it's also absurd how little control you actually have over schools' decisions. We like to think that checking all the right boxes gives us a decent shot at acceptance. Who knows, maybe it does. But after reflecting on my time in the gauntlet, I've begun to severely doubt the extent to which we are the "masters of our fate." Granted, every year it seems that there's one superstar here that gets accepted to nearly all the programs they apply to. Most of us, though, seem to get into a few, at best. So, if you're steadfast in your commitment to going to grad school, and can afford to apply to 14 or more programs, I'd hedge your bets on the potential staggering ROI of >200%. I don't mean to be a Debby Downer, and I certainly wouldn't argue that hard work doesn't pay off. But, trivialism aside, you're accepted to 0% of the schools you don't apply to, and 0% is lower than even the smallest non-zero percentage of acceptance to a top-5 reach school.*
Which brings me to the GRE. I used to think that scoring in the stratosphere was necessary (but still not sufficient) for acceptance. Recently, however, I've been rethinking both the "necessary" and "sufficient" conditions. My own stats bear out the degree of score insufficiency: 167V/163Q/6.0A / 730 (97%) LGRE. According to ETS's chart (https://www.ets.org/s/gre/pdf/gre_guide_table4.pdf), of English majors, I scored higher than about 90% on the Verbal, 95% on the Quant, 93% on the AW, and 97% on the Literature subject test. These numbers aren't exact since the chart provides only ranges, but you get my point. To wit: only about 46 test-takers, out of roughly 1500, beat me on the subject test. Yet, I was rejected by 80% of the schools on my list! In my case, at least, high numbers didn't seem do me any magical favors across the board. 
On the other hand, another frequent poster here (whom I won't call out by name) scored lower than I did in all categories and will nonetheless be spending the next five or six years in Cambridge at Harvard, which, coincidentally, sent me a very nice rejection letter a few months ago. In the end, a school will likely accept somebody they want (for fit, personality, style, etc.) over somebody they don't want who happens to have "better" GRE scores. That calculus might sound self-evident, but it should really give you pause before you stress out too much about these silly tests. To use a hyperbolic example, if you scored 130/130/1.0, then, by all means, you should retake it. If in the more likely event you scored at or higher than 160V/145Q/5.0A, I'd focus instead on researching particular schools that need your subspecialty** and crafting a red-hot SoP and glowing WS that leave schools no choice but to accept you. You are SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO*** much more than the sum of your test scores, both as a person and as an applicant. And remember, the university has to live with you for six years, which, I think, matters a lot. Thus, submitting an SoP that displays intelligence, curiosity, resolve, modesty, and kindness will go infinitely farther in gauging your sufferability than the percent of English majors you beat on a test nobody truly cares about. 
I wish you good luck, and may the admissions odds ever be in your favor! Also, if Stanford crops up on your list, feel free to PM me if you want to learn more about their program (which, by the way, is killing it in 19th-c. and post-war American lit!).  
* although the notion of reach schools may be irrelevant when most cohorts comprise ~10 spots.
** this isn't necessarily synonymous with "fit." If I could change one thing about my app cycle, I would've emailed profs and dept. assistants about which subspecialties they need. I have no idea whether they'd even respond, let alone divulge info like that, but it could go a long way toward helping cull your list. At the end of the day, a program that has met its quota on 19th-c. Americanists is almost sure to reject another aspiring Whitmanist, irrespective of astronomical scores or BAMF SoP. Also, "fit" isn't easy -- or sometimes even possible -- to gauge. I thought I'd fit in real well at UVA since two of their Victorianists are researching the exact topic of my WS. But, alas, no dice there. So beware of reading too much into that vague qualification. 
*** the Internet doesn't have enough bandwidth to support the infinite Os that ought to follow the S in that word. 
 

You made a great choice, @FreakyFoucault! I'm hoping more major programs will follow suit before my 2020 cycle...

Not sure if Stanford was still requiring GRE scores for 2018 applications, but just FYI to anyone interested that they are no longer (beginning in the 2019 cycle) requiring scores for either the subject test OR the general GRE. Almost makes up for that $125 application fee...

@klader's advice about visiting is spot-on. My second visit totally blew me away, so much so, in fact, that my decision to accept their offer was nearly effortless ... almost even fatalistic! So, at least in my case, visiting made all the difference! Even if you can't afford much time, however, an impromptu day trip (which, by the way, one school organized for me on their dime -- ask if they can chip in!) will give you the chance to learn from your own two eyes (and ears). You intuit much more in person about a campus's way of life and a program's flow than you can by researching on the Internet (not that that route isn't informative, of course). In short, do try to make a visit happen! And don't be afraid to ask schools for financial assistance! 

I completely agree with both of the above sentiments. All of our suggestions here bear a tacit YMMV caveat. If OP determines in their cost-benefit analysis that applying to five programs makes the most sense, then five is the magic number! Alternatively, if they want to hedge their bets and apply to 15, then 15 is the magic number! Here's the catch: I was initially hesitant to remark that "you're accepted to 0% of the programs to which you don't apply" because such a trivialism ignores the significant opportunity cost (time and money) involved in adding more schools to the list. I was lucky enough to be able to pay the $2300 it took to get myself into grad school. In an alternate universe, however, I might've applied only to the 3 universities that accepted me and saved a bunch of money doing so. If that had been the case, I'd likely be the proud owner of a preowned Honda Rebel 300 -- I'd be unstoppable!!! But, on the other hand, I also might've applied only to the 13 schools that ended up rejecting me, which would've cost a lot and left me with nothing. Both situations are possible, the former certainly so: @Kilos, and many others here, have succeeded despite (or, perhaps, because of) applying to only a handful of programs. Nonetheless, others here apply to many and receive only a few acceptances ... or none. It's a numbers game, but with research and good luck you can do well for yourself without breaking the bank. 
Kilos is also right to mention application fatigue. Because I got a job after graduating, I was able to prepare my applications deliberately over the course of a year and a half. I did a little grad-school work here and there (sometimes at my office) with ample breaks and largely avoided burning out. Unfortunately, not all applicants have time on their side. If you do, however, I'd start researching and writing (and getting the tests out of the way) as soon as possible. Avoid procrastinating, though, because time truly does evaporate after you leave school. You have to be vigilant to avoid the fate of Samuel Johnson's Idler: 
“[Mr. Sober] draws oils and waters [from his chemical furnace], and essences and spirits, which he knows to be of no use; sits and counts the drops as they come from his retort, and forgets that, whilst a drop is falling, a moment flies away.”
Just be mindful of your options, OP. Hindsight, for those of us who are starting programs in 2018, is 20-20. Foresight, of course, isn't. Do what makes sense for you. The right course will become evident in time. 

Wow! My head is swimming in all this excellent advice. Thanks, all, for commenting. Several of my professors also suggested applying to all the programs I can afford and can make time for tailoring apps. Luckily, I'm in the position finance-wise and time-wise to apply to all 18-ish schools on my list (after several more rounds of vetting, of course).
@FreakyFoucault Thanks for the welcome and for all the suggestions! You have put my mind at ease regarding the GRE (at least, for now). And as for the money talk, I see now that the return on investment of applying to more schools greatly outweighs the initial cost of apps. Thanks for putting that in terms that I can easily understand! I will look again at Stanford and message you if I have any questions – thanks a bunch. 
I'll be mindful of application fatigue, too, @Kilos. I'm hoping that I've started this application process soon enough to avoid the fatigue showing up in apps, but we shall see. 
@Warelin, those numbers really put this whole thing into perspective. It seems like my expectations should be thrown out the window when it comes to acceptances/rejections.  
@M(allthevowels)H I would love to hear about Ole Miss's program if you don't mind! I've just looked into Rice and I was impressed with the faculty working on environmental lit. Plus, living in Houston would be great, I imagine. They have already been added to my list – thanks for the suggestion. Congrats on your acceptances and good luck in the fall! 
@klader I will be sure to only apply to schools where I see a strong fit. The problem so far is that I fall in love with so many programs that I look into! But yes, I look forward to the day when campus visits are around the corner. I'm not currently a student, so I'll have to work something out with my job, but it sounds like campus visits are necessary on the decision-making side of this process. Thanks for your suggestions! 
I'm sure I'm not doing replying correctly, but I wanted to make sure to thank everyone for their sound advice. You guys rock! 
 

I completely agree with both of the above sentiments. All of our suggestions here bear a tacit YMMV caveat. If OP determines in their cost-benefit analysis that applying to five programs makes the most sense, then five is the magic number! Alternatively, if they want to hedge their bets and apply to 15, then 15 is the magic number! Here's the catch: I was initially hesitant to remark that "you're accepted to 0% of the programs to which you don't apply" because such a trivialism ignores the significant opportunity cost (time and money) involved in adding more schools to the list. I was lucky enough to be able to pay the $2300 it took to get myself into grad school. In an alternate universe, however, I might've applied only to the 3 universities that accepted me and saved a bunch of money doing so. If that had been the case, I'd likely be the proud owner of a preowned Honda Rebel 300 -- I'd be unstoppable!!! But, on the other hand, I also might've applied only to the 13 schools that ended up rejecting me, which would've cost a lot and left me with nothing. Both situations are possible, the former certainly so: @Kilos, and many others here, have succeeded despite (or, perhaps, because of) applying to only a handful of programs. Nonetheless, others here apply to many and receive only a few acceptances ... or none. It's a numbers game, but with research and good luck you can do well for yourself without breaking the bank. 
Kilos is also right to mention application fatigue. Because I got a job after graduating, I was able to prepare my applications deliberately over the course of a year and a half. I did a little grad-school work here and there (sometimes at my office) with ample breaks and largely avoided burning out. Unfortunately, not all applicants have time on their side. If you do, however, I'd start researching and writing (and getting the tests out of the way) as soon as possible. Avoid procrastinating, though, because time truly does evaporate after you leave school. You have to be vigilant to avoid the fate of Samuel Johnson's Idler: 
“[Mr. Sober] draws oils and waters [from his chemical furnace], and essences and spirits, which he knows to be of no use; sits and counts the drops as they come from his retort, and forgets that, whilst a drop is falling, a moment flies away.”
Just be mindful of your options, OP. Hindsight, for those of us who are starting programs in 2018, is 20-20. Foresight, of course, isn't. Do what makes sense for you. The right course will become evident in time. 

Welcome, @CatBowl! 
I wanted to echo the many good suggestions here and, in particular, add my 2¢ about the number of applications you plan to submit. I, like @Warelin, applied to 16 schools. The cost of app fees, GRE, and GRE prep came out to ~ $2300. I had a job then, but it was about a month's pay (actually two month's after my student-loan bills), so the cost was not one I bore lightly. To put this amount in perspective, I was accepted to 3 out of 16 universities -- a 19% success rate -- even with having >95% GRE percentiles, SoPs that I fine tuned for about six months, letters from profs whom I knew very well (I just spoke at one of their retirement parties), and an essay that I proofread so often that I could likely recite it today by memory. Yet, I still received rejection letters from 13 schools! My point is that luck and unseen variables still play a large role in this crazy process. All things being equal, I would've been shut out had I not applied to those three schools that took a chance on me. 
But let's return to my investment for a moment. $2300 is a lot of money. If you're accepted to just one school, however, the potential ROI is astounding. Tuition waiver included, my program will be investing around $500,000 in me over six years. I know math isn't loved by many here (me included), but the return-on-investment yield is jaw-dropping:
ROI = (Gain from Investment - Cost of Investment) / Cost of Investment
ROI = (500k - 2.3k) / 2.3k = 216.4%
I agree with @Kilos that spending several thousand dollars on applications is absurd. But it's also absurd how little control you actually have over schools' decisions. We like to think that checking all the right boxes gives us a decent shot at acceptance. Who knows, maybe it does. But after reflecting on my time in the gauntlet, I've begun to severely doubt the extent to which we are the "masters of our fate." Granted, every year it seems that there's one superstar here that gets accepted to nearly all the programs they apply to. Most of us, though, seem to get into a few, at best. So, if you're steadfast in your commitment to going to grad school, and can afford to apply to 14 or more programs, I'd hedge your bets on the potential staggering ROI of >200%. I don't mean to be a Debby Downer, and I certainly wouldn't argue that hard work doesn't pay off. But, trivialism aside, you're accepted to 0% of the schools you don't apply to, and 0% is lower than even the smallest non-zero percentage of acceptance to a top-5 reach school.*
Which brings me to the GRE. I used to think that scoring in the stratosphere was necessary (but still not sufficient) for acceptance. Recently, however, I've been rethinking both the "necessary" and "sufficient" conditions. My own stats bear out the degree of score insufficiency: 167V/163Q/6.0A / 730 (97%) LGRE. According to ETS's chart (https://www.ets.org/s/gre/pdf/gre_guide_table4.pdf), of English majors, I scored higher than about 90% on the Verbal, 95% on the Quant, 93% on the AW, and 97% on the Literature subject test. These numbers aren't exact since the chart provides only ranges, but you get my point. To wit: only about 46 test-takers, out of roughly 1500, beat me on the subject test. Yet, I was rejected by 80% of the schools on my list! In my case, at least, high numbers didn't seem do me any magical favors across the board. 
On the other hand, another frequent poster here (whom I won't call out by name) scored lower than I did in all categories and will nonetheless be spending the next five or six years in Cambridge at Harvard, which, coincidentally, sent me a very nice rejection letter a few months ago. In the end, a school will likely accept somebody they want (for fit, personality, style, etc.) over somebody they don't want who happens to have "better" GRE scores. That calculus might sound self-evident, but it should really give you pause before you stress out too much about these silly tests. To use a hyperbolic example, if you scored 130/130/1.0, then, by all means, you should retake it. If in the more likely event you scored at or higher than 160V/145Q/5.0A, I'd focus instead on researching particular schools that need your subspecialty** and crafting a red-hot SoP and glowing WS that leave schools no choice but to accept you. You are SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO*** much more than the sum of your test scores, both as a person and as an applicant. And remember, the university has to live with you for six years, which, I think, matters a lot. Thus, submitting an SoP that displays intelligence, curiosity, resolve, modesty, and kindness will go infinitely farther in gauging your sufferability than the percent of English majors you beat on a test nobody truly cares about. 
I wish you good luck, and may the admissions odds ever be in your favor! Also, if Stanford crops up on your list, feel free to PM me if you want to learn more about their program (which, by the way, is killing it in 19th-c. and post-war American lit!).  
* although the notion of reach schools may be irrelevant when most cohorts comprise ~10 spots.
** this isn't necessarily synonymous with "fit." If I could change one thing about my app cycle, I would've emailed profs and dept. assistants about which subspecialties they need. I have no idea whether they'd even respond, let alone divulge info like that, but it could go a long way toward helping cull your list. At the end of the day, a program that has met its quota on 19th-c. Americanists is almost sure to reject another aspiring Whitmanist, irrespective of astronomical scores or BAMF SoP. Also, "fit" isn't easy -- or sometimes even possible -- to gauge. I thought I'd fit in real well at UVA since two of their Victorianists are researching the exact topic of my WS. But, alas, no dice there. So beware of reading too much into that vague qualification. 
*** the Internet doesn't have enough bandwidth to support the infinite Os that ought to follow the S in that word. 
 

Welcome, @CatBowl! 
I wanted to echo the many good suggestions here and, in particular, add my 2¢ about the number of applications you plan to submit. I, like @Warelin, applied to 16 schools. The cost of app fees, GRE, and GRE prep came out to ~ $2300. I had a job then, but it was about a month's pay (actually two month's after my student-loan bills), so the cost was not one I bore lightly. To put this amount in perspective, I was accepted to 3 out of 16 universities -- a 19% success rate -- even with having >95% GRE percentiles, SoPs that I fine tuned for about six months, letters from profs whom I knew very well (I just spoke at one of their retirement parties), and an essay that I proofread so often that I could likely recite it today by memory. Yet, I still received rejection letters from 13 schools! My point is that luck and unseen variables still play a large role in this crazy process. All things being equal, I would've been shut out had I not applied to those three schools that took a chance on me. 
But let's return to my investment for a moment. $2300 is a lot of money. If you're accepted to just one school, however, the potential ROI is astounding. Tuition waiver included, my program will be investing around $500,000 in me over six years. I know math isn't loved by many here (me included), but the return-on-investment yield is jaw-dropping:
ROI = (Gain from Investment - Cost of Investment) / Cost of Investment
ROI = (500k - 2.3k) / 2.3k = 216.4%
I agree with @Kilos that spending several thousand dollars on applications is absurd. But it's also absurd how little control you actually have over schools' decisions. We like to think that checking all the right boxes gives us a decent shot at acceptance. Who knows, maybe it does. But after reflecting on my time in the gauntlet, I've begun to severely doubt the extent to which we are the "masters of our fate." Granted, every year it seems that there's one superstar here that gets accepted to nearly all the programs they apply to. Most of us, though, seem to get into a few, at best. So, if you're steadfast in your commitment to going to grad school, and can afford to apply to 14 or more programs, I'd hedge your bets on the potential staggering ROI of >200%. I don't mean to be a Debby Downer, and I certainly wouldn't argue that hard work doesn't pay off. But, trivialism aside, you're accepted to 0% of the schools you don't apply to, and 0% is lower than even the smallest non-zero percentage of acceptance to a top-5 reach school.*
Which brings me to the GRE. I used to think that scoring in the stratosphere was necessary (but still not sufficient) for acceptance. Recently, however, I've been rethinking both the "necessary" and "sufficient" conditions. My own stats bear out the degree of score insufficiency: 167V/163Q/6.0A / 730 (97%) LGRE. According to ETS's chart (https://www.ets.org/s/gre/pdf/gre_guide_table4.pdf), of English majors, I scored higher than about 90% on the Verbal, 95% on the Quant, 93% on the AW, and 97% on the Literature subject test. These numbers aren't exact since the chart provides only ranges, but you get my point. To wit: only about 46 test-takers, out of roughly 1500, beat me on the subject test. Yet, I was rejected by 80% of the schools on my list! In my case, at least, high numbers didn't seem do me any magical favors across the board. 
On the other hand, another frequent poster here (whom I won't call out by name) scored lower than I did in all categories and will nonetheless be spending the next five or six years in Cambridge at Harvard, which, coincidentally, sent me a very nice rejection letter a few months ago. In the end, a school will likely accept somebody they want (for fit, personality, style, etc.) over somebody they don't want who happens to have "better" GRE scores. That calculus might sound self-evident, but it should really give you pause before you stress out too much about these silly tests. To use a hyperbolic example, if you scored 130/130/1.0, then, by all means, you should retake it. If in the more likely event you scored at or higher than 160V/145Q/5.0A, I'd focus instead on researching particular schools that need your subspecialty** and crafting a red-hot SoP and glowing WS that leave schools no choice but to accept you. You are SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO*** much more than the sum of your test scores, both as a person and as an applicant. And remember, the university has to live with you for six years, which, I think, matters a lot. Thus, submitting an SoP that displays intelligence, curiosity, resolve, modesty, and kindness will go infinitely farther in gauging your sufferability than the percent of English majors you beat on a test nobody truly cares about. 
I wish you good luck, and may the admissions odds ever be in your favor! Also, if Stanford crops up on your list, feel free to PM me if you want to learn more about their program (which, by the way, is killing it in 19th-c. and post-war American lit!).  
* although the notion of reach schools may be irrelevant when most cohorts comprise ~10 spots.
** this isn't necessarily synonymous with "fit." If I could change one thing about my app cycle, I would've emailed profs and dept. assistants about which subspecialties they need. I have no idea whether they'd even respond, let alone divulge info like that, but it could go a long way toward helping cull your list. At the end of the day, a program that has met its quota on 19th-c. Americanists is almost sure to reject another aspiring Whitmanist, irrespective of astronomical scores or BAMF SoP. Also, "fit" isn't easy -- or sometimes even possible -- to gauge. I thought I'd fit in real well at UVA since two of their Victorianists are researching the exact topic of my WS. But, alas, no dice there. So beware of reading too much into that vague qualification. 
*** the Internet doesn't have enough bandwidth to support the infinite Os that ought to follow the S in that word. 
 

Forest Park is reasonably bike friendly most of the year. STL is kind of weird to bike in the winter though, as roads aren't really plowed if there's snow and it's mess. The Metro is getting much more reliable though and public transportation is improving!

@jrockford27 and @indecisivepoet are right - lean hard on the Princeton Review and it'll get you where you need to be. 
Also, I didn't get a perfect score but I had success with apps.
I've heard (from profs who sit on adcoms, profs who don't, and others tuned into application life) that the verbal score - out of all 3 - matters the most. You may be required to have a baseline Quant score (part of a cumulative score of 311 or whatever they want), but the AS score is, like, whatevs. 
A kick-ass SOP and WS outweigh all 3 by leagues, so don't fret if you've a decent AW score (my $0.02).

@FreakyFoucault Thank you so much for that. That was beautifully written and made me feel a lot better about my own GRE. @topsailpsych I second his point. I honestly think that pouring hours and hours into studying trying to increase a score by 3-4 points is not worth it. I was honestly surprised by how much weight the people on GradCafe seem to give to the GRE. I went to a psychology graduate school information session at my undergrad institution that was run by faculty, and they said the most important aspects of your application are research fit/experience and statement of purpose, followed by recommendations and interview, then GPA, and GRE scores all the way at the bottom. That ranking makes a lot more sense to me. GRE scores may be used as a sorting device in that they want to make sure you have some sort of reading/math ability (which your scores demonstrate), but what gets you into grad school is how you portray yourself as a researcher and whether the faculty can see themselves working with you.
I suppose it may be tempting to focus on the GRE because it feels like something you can easily change in a short period of time, but you have to remember that (1) it's actually difficult to improve significantly and more likely that you'll receive the same or lower scores and (2) the test prep companies are really invested in making you think that the GRE is worth more than it is.
Good luck with those papers and your next application cycle!

Hi, @topsailpsych!
I'm coming from the English lit. forum, so my advice may very well be completely irrelevant. I'd hope psychology programs would have extra reason to be skeptical about dubious standardized tests like the GRE, but, hey, maybe they love it. I don't know. Regardless, my application experience might help you decide whether to spend more time and money on a second pass. 
I applied last cycle to 16 mostly top-ranked PhD programs, and got accepted to 3 of them. My GRE scores were fairly high: 167V/163Q/6.0A / 730 (97%) LGRE. According to ETS's chart (https://www.ets.org/s/gre/pdf/gre_guide_table4.pdf), among English majors, I scored higher than about 90% on the Verbal, 95% on the Quant, 93% on the AW, and 97% on the literature subject test. These percentages aren't exact since the chart provides only ranges, but you get my point. In absolute terms, to illustrate, only about 46 test-takers, out of roughly 1500, beat me on the subject test. Yet, I was still rejected by 80% of the schools on my list! In my case, at least, big GRE numbers didn't seem do me any magical favors across the board. If you're applying to top programs, high scores are simply not enough to seal the deal. In fact, we've had more than a few applicants on the English forum get accepted to fantastic programs with much lower scores than mine. One in particular scored only a few points higher than you did on the Verbal section and nonetheless got into Harvard. Granted, I've heard echoes here and there that lower-ranked programs like to admit students with higher GRE scores so they can move up in the rankings, but I haven't seen much convincing evidence to support that.
I wrote this in a recent answer, but I think it applies here too: In the end, a school is much more likely to accept somebody they want (for fit, personality, style, etc.) over somebody they don't want who happens to have "better" GRE scores. That calculus might sound self-evident, but it should really give you pause before you stress out too much about these silly tests. To use a hyperbolic example, if you scored 130/130/1.0, then, by all means, you should retake it. With your scores, however, I'd focus instead on researching particular schools that need your subspecialty and crafting a red-hot SoP and WS that leave schools no choice but to accept you. You are SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much more than the sum of your test scores, both as a person and as an applicant. And remember, the university has to live with you for six years (if you're going for a PhD), which, I think, matters a lot. Thus, submitting an SoP that displays intelligence, curiosity, resolve, modesty, and kindness will go infinitely farther in gauging your sufferability than the percent of applicants you beat on a test nobody truly cares about. 
I totally understand how being shoehorned into "objective" GRE percentiles almost feels like getting branded. If you have the time, money, and resolve to score higher, retaking the test might not be a bad idea. But be aware that it's also possible to do worse the second time around. It's much less likely, on the other hand, that spending more time on the other aspects of your applications (as others have suggested) will hurt you in any way. Unless you start hacking up your materials, additional proofreading is almost always beneficial. Just don't get trapped in the idea that high GRE scores will lead you to salvation. Mine seem not to have impressed anybody at the 13 schools from which I was rejected!
At any rate, good luck! I'll be hoping to hear good news from you at the end of the cycle!

I think this is a very excellent point. Three of the programs I was accepted at were the last three added before I finalized the list and sent them to my professors. I liked them all, but thought my chances were too low. The process is really humbling. I was rejected by colleges that I thought I had a really good chance of getting in based on scores, admission rates and interests. And accepted by schools I thought I had no chance at. I was accepted by schools that accept less than 5 percent of applicants and rejected by schools that accept more than 30 percent of their applicants.

Welcome, @CatBowl! 
I wanted to echo the many good suggestions here and, in particular, add my 2¢ about the number of applications you plan to submit. I, like @Warelin, applied to 16 schools. The cost of app fees, GRE, and GRE prep came out to ~ $2300. I had a job then, but it was about a month's pay (actually two month's after my student-loan bills), so the cost was not one I bore lightly. To put this amount in perspective, I was accepted to 3 out of 16 universities -- a 19% success rate -- even with having >95% GRE percentiles, SoPs that I fine tuned for about six months, letters from profs whom I knew very well (I just spoke at one of their retirement parties), and an essay that I proofread so often that I could likely recite it today by memory. Yet, I still received rejection letters from 13 schools! My point is that luck and unseen variables still play a large role in this crazy process. All things being equal, I would've been shut out had I not applied to those three schools that took a chance on me. 
But let's return to my investment for a moment. $2300 is a lot of money. If you're accepted to just one school, however, the potential ROI is astounding. Tuition waiver included, my program will be investing around $500,000 in me over six years. I know math isn't loved by many here (me included), but the return-on-investment yield is jaw-dropping:
ROI = (Gain from Investment - Cost of Investment) / Cost of Investment
ROI = (500k - 2.3k) / 2.3k = 216.4%
I agree with @Kilos that spending several thousand dollars on applications is absurd. But it's also absurd how little control you actually have over schools' decisions. We like to think that checking all the right boxes gives us a decent shot at acceptance. Who knows, maybe it does. But after reflecting on my time in the gauntlet, I've begun to severely doubt the extent to which we are the "masters of our fate." Granted, every year it seems that there's one superstar here that gets accepted to nearly all the programs they apply to. Most of us, though, seem to get into a few, at best. So, if you're steadfast in your commitment to going to grad school, and can afford to apply to 14 or more programs, I'd hedge your bets on the potential staggering ROI of >200%. I don't mean to be a Debby Downer, and I certainly wouldn't argue that hard work doesn't pay off. But, trivialism aside, you're accepted to 0% of the schools you don't apply to, and 0% is lower than even the smallest non-zero percentage of acceptance to a top-5 reach school.*
Which brings me to the GRE. I used to think that scoring in the stratosphere was necessary (but still not sufficient) for acceptance. Recently, however, I've been rethinking both the "necessary" and "sufficient" conditions. My own stats bear out the degree of score insufficiency: 167V/163Q/6.0A / 730 (97%) LGRE. According to ETS's chart (https://www.ets.org/s/gre/pdf/gre_guide_table4.pdf), of English majors, I scored higher than about 90% on the Verbal, 95% on the Quant, 93% on the AW, and 97% on the Literature subject test. These numbers aren't exact since the chart provides only ranges, but you get my point. To wit: only about 46 test-takers, out of roughly 1500, beat me on the subject test. Yet, I was rejected by 80% of the schools on my list! In my case, at least, high numbers didn't seem do me any magical favors across the board. 
On the other hand, another frequent poster here (whom I won't call out by name) scored lower than I did in all categories and will nonetheless be spending the next five or six years in Cambridge at Harvard, which, coincidentally, sent me a very nice rejection letter a few months ago. In the end, a school will likely accept somebody they want (for fit, personality, style, etc.) over somebody they don't want who happens to have "better" GRE scores. That calculus might sound self-evident, but it should really give you pause before you stress out too much about these silly tests. To use a hyperbolic example, if you scored 130/130/1.0, then, by all means, you should retake it. If in the more likely event you scored at or higher than 160V/145Q/5.0A, I'd focus instead on researching particular schools that need your subspecialty** and crafting a red-hot SoP and glowing WS that leave schools no choice but to accept you. You are SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO*** much more than the sum of your test scores, both as a person and as an applicant. And remember, the university has to live with you for six years, which, I think, matters a lot. Thus, submitting an SoP that displays intelligence, curiosity, resolve, modesty, and kindness will go infinitely farther in gauging your sufferability than the percent of English majors you beat on a test nobody truly cares about. 
I wish you good luck, and may the admissions odds ever be in your favor! Also, if Stanford crops up on your list, feel free to PM me if you want to learn more about their program (which, by the way, is killing it in 19th-c. and post-war American lit!).  
* although the notion of reach schools may be irrelevant when most cohorts comprise ~10 spots.
** this isn't necessarily synonymous with "fit." If I could change one thing about my app cycle, I would've emailed profs and dept. assistants about which subspecialties they need. I have no idea whether they'd even respond, let alone divulge info like that, but it could go a long way toward helping cull your list. At the end of the day, a program that has met its quota on 19th-c. Americanists is almost sure to reject another aspiring Whitmanist, irrespective of astronomical scores or BAMF SoP. Also, "fit" isn't easy -- or sometimes even possible -- to gauge. I thought I'd fit in real well at UVA since two of their Victorianists are researching the exact topic of my WS. But, alas, no dice there. So beware of reading too much into that vague qualification. 
*** the Internet doesn't have enough bandwidth to support the infinite Os that ought to follow the S in that word. 
 

I completely agree with both of the above sentiments. All of our suggestions here bear a tacit YMMV caveat. If OP determines in their cost-benefit analysis that applying to five programs makes the most sense, then five is the magic number! Alternatively, if they want to hedge their bets and apply to 15, then 15 is the magic number! Here's the catch: I was initially hesitant to remark that "you're accepted to 0% of the programs to which you don't apply" because such a trivialism ignores the significant opportunity cost (time and money) involved in adding more schools to the list. I was lucky enough to be able to pay the $2300 it took to get myself into grad school. In an alternate universe, however, I might've applied only to the 3 universities that accepted me and saved a bunch of money doing so. If that had been the case, I'd likely be the proud owner of a preowned Honda Rebel 300 -- I'd be unstoppable!!! But, on the other hand, I also might've applied only to the 13 schools that ended up rejecting me, which would've cost a lot and left me with nothing. Both situations are possible, the former certainly so: @Kilos, and many others here, have succeeded despite (or, perhaps, because of) applying to only a handful of programs. Nonetheless, others here apply to many and receive only a few acceptances ... or none. It's a numbers game, but with research and good luck you can do well for yourself without breaking the bank. 
Kilos is also right to mention application fatigue. Because I got a job after graduating, I was able to prepare my applications deliberately over the course of a year and a half. I did a little grad-school work here and there (sometimes at my office) with ample breaks and largely avoided burning out. Unfortunately, not all applicants have time on their side. If you do, however, I'd start researching and writing (and getting the tests out of the way) as soon as possible. Avoid procrastinating, though, because time truly does evaporate after you leave school. You have to be vigilant to avoid the fate of Samuel Johnson's Idler: 
“[Mr. Sober] draws oils and waters [from his chemical furnace], and essences and spirits, which he knows to be of no use; sits and counts the drops as they come from his retort, and forgets that, whilst a drop is falling, a moment flies away.”
Just be mindful of your options, OP. Hindsight, for those of us who are starting programs in 2018, is 20-20. Foresight, of course, isn't. Do what makes sense for you. The right course will become evident in time. 

I think @FreakyFoucault sticks the landing on a number of thoughtfully argued points. Sometimes I get so wrapped up in my own perspective and experience that the broader picture begins to blur around the edges. I suppose what I should have said is that in my personal situation, it would have been absurd for me to apply to 10-15 different schools. Though the PhD has always been my end goal, I determined that there were only a few schools/programs that I'd have been willing to drop everything, quit a lucrative career, sell a house, and drag my wife/neurotic cat states away to attend. While it wasn't at all feasible for me, personally, to broadly apply to the large number of schools that I felt drawn to, I'm guessing that most people applying to graduate school are in a much more flexible, fluid situation where the chief objective may not be to find the absolute perfect fit, necessarily, but rather to find one of a number of solid fits. In this case, since we're all kinda shooting in the dark, subject to the whims and wills of admissions committees and what sometimes feels like dumb luck, perhaps the high-volume approach is best. If the desired result is an acceptance above all else, you can only increase your chances by applying to more schools. My only caveat would be that if you plan to apply to a huge number of schools (which, I cede, may be the best course of action), you should be especially mindful of the fact that you're choosing an approach that may, after weeks/months of application fatigue, devolve into adopting a "quantity over quality" mentality; accordingly, you should fight to make sure that doesn't end up showing through in your applications.

Hi hi hi! +1 for the username "CatBowl." Not sure why. 
Reading through your post, it's clear that you're doing everything you can to maximize your chances heading into a PhD application. Having a 4.0 MA and 3.8 undergrad GPA is fantastic, having strong letter-writers will be a huge boon, a great writing sample is key, and your full-time teaching experience will likely seal the deal if the program fit is right. The GRE, in my opinion, is probably not that important in your situation; with all of your experience and the fact that you've already completed a graduate program with a 4.0, I'm not so sure the GRE will devastate your chances. How "laughable" are your scores? You don't have to answer that if you don't want--but consider that your scores probably aren't that bad if they got you into a M.A. program. By all means, retake, but I find that most people's scores aren't as bad as they think they are. If you've got a... 160 V and a 5.0 AW, maybe it's not worth it. That's just my two cents, and higher is definitely better if you have the money and confidence that you'll improve.
That leaves your SoP, which is the hardest part for almost everybody. Good luck. With your personal experience and education I don't think it will be too hard to weave a compelling tale. You've already figured out what your interests are, just lay it out convincingly and don't stress.
To try and chime in on your questions:
1) My opinion is that 14 schools is too many. Many people do the shotgun approach, but I think it's prohibitively expensive and a bit absurd. If somebody can't narrow it down to 6-10 on fit alone, maybe it's worth vetting the fit of the schools they're putting on their list. Some hold fast to the notion that the more applications you throw out, the higher chance you've got of getting accepted. I'd argue that's poppycock. If you're putting together 14 applications you're likely half-assing most of them, and more than a few will get cut because they're cookie-cutter. Find 6-10 schools you love. Look at location, funding, placement, and most importantly FIT. Spend real, hard time putting those applications together. Reach out to people you'd like to work with. Make them shine. Show the adcomm that you're clearly applying to their school and not 14 schools with the same SoP. I only applied to three schools this time around. I got outright rejected by one of the most prestigious English departments in the country, accepted by my UG alma mater, and accepted into the fully funded PhD program at my top choice school (which, please note, was not the super prestigious school). Also, you're definitely not shooting too high, because there is no such thing. If you're a top-prospect scholar they'll see it in your writing sample and your SoP. The only caveat to that is that some schools are hyperselective, and even if you belong there, you might not get in. Keep this in mind, and make sure to hedge your bets with a few schools that accept more than 1% of applicants. Less "prestige," maybe, but just as good. Prestige is overrated anyway--fit, program, opportunity, and placement are where it's at.
2) Yes! My undergraduate niche was ecocriticism and environmental literature. Love it. It's where I feel comfortable, and it's where my passions lie. I'm also a huge rhet/comp nerd, and I want to research the rhetoric of science/writing across disciplines--so I ended up seeking out a perfect fit, top-tier research school where I could do both within an English program that had great multidisciplinary ties to many other departments. From an ecocriticism perspective, I think your list is great. University of Oregon is wonderful, and at the top of the field, but if you're applying as a declared ecocriticism candidate, be prepared to knock their socks off, because it's competitive. Oregon was my top choice school for a long while, until some perspectives shifted. The same goes for UC-Davis, UC-Santa Barbara, and UCLA. I hear UC-Davis is a tough program to get into. Iowa's a great choice! There are a TON of other strong ecocriticism programs (or programs that have strong ecocriticism wings) that don't make your list. Look up Carnegie Mellon's English or Rhetoric PhD programs (Dr. Linda Flower is a hero of mine, and she teaches environmental rhetoric there), University of Idaho has a great program (but Idaho, you say? It's gorgeous! And ISLE!), University of Michigan, University of Montana, and don't forget Ohio State (you can design your own program if you convince them to let you in).
Also, a tip that was given to me when applying--find a specific interest within the broadening discipline of ecocriticism. Consider something like ecofeminism, environmental history, animal ethics, environmental ethics, etc. Even if you change your mind after entering, show them up-front that you can find a wonderful little niche to blossom in.
Hope I didn't ramble too much. Best of luck to you!