merry night wanderer

You've been such a great cheerleader for the rest of us, and I just want to say: the waitlist at UT Austin is a place many would kill to be. And a lot of us with MAs wouldn't have gotten anywhere near that point without the extra time an MA provides. Certainly not me! It's good to keep expectations managed. But in my time as a grad school applicant, I've seen numerous cases of people getting into only one. So don't discount the lottery just yet, and remember a terminal MA is not the end of the world. Is a funded MA not an option? I can think of a few offhand that are in cities with decent job prospects. It would be a commute, but Villanova is close to Philadelphia, for instance. You are thinking about this very pragmatically, which is good, and moving definitely costs a lot, but in this day and age, it's not a bad thing to change jobs - it's how you get a raise in many careers. This is no small sacrifice, and I know it's just realistic to think about how this will impact your finances. But maybe you can find a way to do it without sacrificing your partner's career.

Rankings of MA just don't tend to matter. I try to be a rankings realist, but there are just many, many examples of people with MAs on this forum from places people haven't heard of who go on to get into utterly fantastic schools. I took an MFA, but I benefited enormously from the lit seminars I took, and would not have been prepared at all to apply out of undergrad (props to you folks). My MFA's lit program isn't as well-known as their CW. And since there was a big gap between undergrad and MFA, I'm sure I was accepted on the basis of the MFA. I would say focus on all the elements of your application and cultivating a good relationship with your profs, and maybe, maybe presenting a paper at a conference or something.

This week feels like what last week promised to be. Everyone strap in!

This is an interesting consideration, thank you. In my experience, everybody in English lit is hyperaware of the English rankings, so I still think Regiomantus' perspective provides a useful angle with which to look at this. I'm aware of a number of applicants who wouldn't apply to WUSTL. (Which, if you didn't apply to anything but top 10, that's totally your choice! I wouldn't fault anyone for pragmatism. I'd only be inclined to call you an ass for thinking you're actually better than WUSTL.) The English rankings would likely hold sway with many committee members who are aware of them and are keen on prestige. If this weren't a factor, Rice would have greater success than Berkeley, since overall it is #16 and Berkeley is #22, even though Rice is #35 and Berkeley is #1 in English. However, while Rice does very well for its ranking - and let me be clear, it's a beautiful program I'd be honored to attend - Berkeley's placement rates in English are breathtakingly good. There's just no comparison. Nonetheless, I have wondered if overall/undergrad prestige impacted the job search, and it doesn't surprise me to hear it's a factor as well for committee members outside of the specialization. Good information to be aware of, no matter what choices an applicant makes.

I don't know that anyone else here applied to USC CW, but it looks like they've alerted some CW folks - given their tiny cohorts, that might be it, or they might be slowly rolling them and the waitlists in staggered fashion. Not entirely sure.

Part of me hates that I know this offhand, but Maryland is #30 and WUSTL is #35 according to the new English rankings. Much better ranked (at least) than the other two being discussed, nothing to scoff at - but plenty of people don't even consider the #30s. So I think Regimentations' perspective is quite interesting.

Congrats! That's quite a first!!

Just a heads up that I adjusted Oregon's package with more information, especially since there was some confusion about it earlier in the year. It's definitely tight, but I think there was some confusion surrounding the way they've worded things, and the situation is better than people have assumed.

That's awful! I know recommendations are a pain, but come on...

No, and hopefully it's classified correctly as the English and non-Creative Writing track, but the Creative Writing PhD draft on fb hasn't reported any acceptances/waitlists on that end.

"Institutionally monogamous" is definitely the phrase of the day. (Also echoing MichelleObama, I really appreciate this forum as a helpful information stream/easy way to channel anxieties without bothering friends and family who have no idea how this works and who don't need to hear every little bump on the rollercoaster. Plus I feel like I've learned an enormous amount, not only about applications but about rankings, the job market, conferences, etc in the process.) Congrats to the UW and Tufts acceptances!

If it's not a school you're gunning for, and it's a huge financial or time hassle, I personally would not, and I'm sure any adcom would deny it has anything to do with who gets an offer off the waitlist. But only you can assess whether you are invested enough in the school to visit!

Do you know where you are on the waitlist? If you got the offer, would you take it?

^ I know this is a factor, but no matter how many times I tell myself, it always helps to hear it. Thanks inchoate-eyes.

That's definitely a good way to think about it!

lol, I had this kind of day - just got rejected from Seattle as well!

I am 100% rooting for you two to be an English power team, @Indecisive Poet! There's a lot of drama yet to come. I hope it falls in your favor!

Because apparently I'm using this thing for goddamn therapy: after literally a night spent trying to get myself to come to terms with the fact my partner and I might continue to be long-distance for god knows how long (we've already been very long distance for 5 years, and none of the cities that were options for me are promising for him in terms of a job), I got into Johns Hopkins, which is the city where he's living right now. This is not going to be the deciding factor - I'd be happy and honored to go to any school I applied to, and thankfully he and I are very much on the same page of suffering some of this to make our dreams come true, and he might need to move anyway given that he needs to pursue his work as well, but goddamn, it is so nice to have an actual option. Lots of solidarity to everyone in a similar position. It sucks.

Oh yeah, not together. I think it sounds like it's going to be a mess to coordinate but I would personally do it by talking to them all individually, unless they all want to talk to each other and suggest it themselves. Just be open about how you're not sure what the protocol is. I don't think there is protocol! But they've already made you an offer, and it's not like they can rescind it based on you getting into too many schools. I mean, if you asked Chicago about those dates, they are going to guess that you have other places to visit, anyway - they might as well know openly. Most DGS types I've ever spoken to are very kind and candid. They know some people will reject their offers and want people to maintain interest. At this point, the power is in your hands, not theirs, and I think they should be willing to accommodate you, and if they're not, screw them, you have four other excellent schools to consider. (Though fwiw, I would not feel guilty about taking up all 1k of Chicago's money lol. These elite private universities are loaded.)

I'd just be open with them about the situation. It's uncomfortable, but you're allowed to have many choices! If they'd hold that against you, it would be really out of turn for them, I think. I wouldn't email them all at the same time, but an individual note asking what they think would be totally appropriate, and you can maybe take it from there.

Ah, okay! So it wasn't an unprecedented amount for them. It seems a lot compared to similarly ranked schools like UC Davis who I think report 175 or so.

Sure thing. First of all: if you're looking for a job, make as much use of your school's career center as humanly possible. They are there to help you, and they can hopefully help you word/frame the experience you've had so far in such a way that looks appealing on a resume. With that said: you are going to want to fact-check all of their advice, because to be honest, a lot of the people in career centers are university admins and don't always know jack about the job market! However, it doesn't hurt to go to them to get your resume checked and to ask them about the jobs they're aware of. When I was an undergrad, I found them very helpful for positioning all the tutoring jobs I held in such a way that landed me an incredibly sweet and rare position as an actual scriptwriter (as in, I wrote dialogue for videos - I was unbelievably lucky, but then again, the company was a trainwreck and imploded two years later... capitalism sucks, but I digress). They really helped me format my resume. When it came to searching for jobs, they were more clueless and I was on my own, but I'm still glad I went to see them. Second, I would suggest just browsing jobs in your area, using Indeed or Monster or what have you - sometimes, schools have their own job boards as well - and seeing what looks appealing and what you think you can do. Don't be intimidated if you don't have the skills yet, necessarily. You can learn those skills. I repeat: you can learn those skills. Screw imposter syndrome. You're smart and adaptable. Be honest with yourself about what you can learn - for instance, in my field, it's helpful to know a bit about graphic design. While I can do minor graphic design (I have the world's tiniest, most insignificant amount of talent in the visual arts), I am never going to be a full on graphic designer; at the same time, knowing a bit about Illustrator is doable and looks great on the resume, so I put it there, even though I don't overplay my hand wrt graphic design. But you definitely want to be bold and put things on your resume that you feel confident you know something about, or can learn something about quickly. Unfortunately, most resumes are processed through a computer before they reach human eyes, and computers are very dumb - so it's all about getting keywords in. Use the job descriptions to learn the lingo, copy their wording for soft skills, and if you see software listed in the skills section of the jobs, learn something about it and list it. "Knowing software" need not be super complex or intimidating. Trust me: if you can apply for a Ph.D, you can learn PowerPoint or the ins and outs of Word. Even if you don't know everything, you can look up a YouTube tutorial. You are capable of that. You may not have even thought of putting software on your resume - I didn't - but again, computers are dumb, and if you don't list things like Microsoft Office, you might get sorted into the No pile. I find a lot of people feel very intimidated by this, but they shouldn't be. My field routinely lists an extremely simple screenshot snapping software called SnagIt in the skills section, which takes, I kid you not, two buttons to correctly use, but if I don't put it on my resume, I risk being sorted out. The corporate universe is wild. It depends on which field you're in, but if you're doing writing, for instance, a portfolio is always helpful. You will probably have to write articles from scratch since you definitely don't want to put literary criticism on there, and as much of a pain as this is to do, it is always worth it to have tangible proof of your skill. I will also say this: approach jobs ruthlessly. I am biased because of my political beliefs, and the fact I've always lived in at-will employment states, but I do strongly believe you should not let any professional job get personal for you. This isn't academia, which, extremely problematic as it is, does have a very worthwhile, ethical dimension - companies are making money off of you, and often a lot of money, and often at your expense. Mediocrity is often rewarded. Nepotism wins out over quality, almost every time. Even if you love your manager (and I've been friends with many of mine; a couple transitioned to close friends, in fact) they don't always have the power they need to watch your back when budgets get slashed and layoffs happen. Look out for yourself and pay attention to your survival instincts!

I feel a little presumptuous saying this, but I guess as someone who has had some big gaps in their education: If anyone is totally lost about what kinds of jobs to get if they get shut out, I do know a bit about it - I actually have a position that many Ph.Ds turn to as alt-ac, and I have some understanding of how an English major's skillset can be transferred. (Let me tell you, I have some mixed feelings about seeing a freelance job I've held before listed by some schools in placement records!) Hopefully you all know this, but statistically, you aren't lost as a liberal arts major. It takes more time and research, but ultimately most of us land positions that pay as well as any other major. My current job pays well and is done remotely, meaning I can (and do) travel often. You probably need a master's to do my particular position, but I held some decent positions before my master's as well. The key is really to get up to date on certain software and certifications, and to pay close attention to what kinds of jobs are actually being advertised, because the workforce is changing so much that appropriate jobs aren't always called what you expect. (Loads of jobs need writing skills, not just ones that are titled "Writer.") Also: I took tons of time off. And you know this, I'm sure, but it can be very fruitful. Aside from practical corporate bullshit, I learned how to be a fiction writer, I recovered from a lot of the mental health issues I had after homeschooling, I traveled, I went to a million burn festivals, and I read for the syllabus of myself. I doubt most of you will be as meandering as I've been about it, and maybe you don't need time off like I did, but if all goes well, you have the rest of your lives to be in academia, and you can make great use of a year, and be a better scholar and teacher for it.

For sure, I wouldn't assume not putting numbers up meant lack of transparency. From what I understand, the Rutgers situation was a little different (folding successful years on the market into their percentages, for instance, and omitting more-recent, even more brutal years, but I'd defer to those threads since I haven't looked at Rutgers or investigated it personally). It does seem very fair to ask departments about this directly when you've received an offer, to me, and that's probably the most reliable source of info overall.

That's an excellent point, and there was some analysis on other threads about how places like Rutgers have been fudging it. Rutgers being a highly ranked school*, that does not bode well. I would personally balk a little at a school that isn't transparent about this. I know Rice is, for instance, and that's a huge point in their favor for me - even though the last couple years they've landed a lot of postdocs, not TT jobs (but I mean, in a market where Columbia doesn't place TT jobs? idk, I have a lot of thinking to do about this, still). I think it's fair to ask a place about their numbers, and compare what you get with the placement record with total awarded Ph.Ds etc., though, and that would at least be a start... * For the record, I feel really uncomfortable talking about rankings and have spent a whole, whole lot of time thinking about classism in the academy, what it really means, etc. I just think it behooves us all to be realistic about this, even though I'm not sure anyone knows how direct a role rankings actually play. Again, there's been great, honest, pragmatic discussion about this on these forums from NowMoreSerious, Bumblebea, etc.