Indecisive Poet

@kgras13 I've been continually confused by this page too. But "non-resident tuition fee fellowships are awarded to competitive new students who are not residents of California" definitely suggests that most students (unless they accept predominantly CA-based students, which I doubt) don't receive funding, as it is competitive. It may be worth reaching out to the DGS to double-check. I may end up doing this later on down the line because I'd also be very interested in their program if it were funded.

@merry night wanderer Nope, also very rare.

Nope. I was told this by @Warelin. I didn't ask for a source because I feel comfortable trusting everything they say LOL. But I'm sure they would be happy to provide one.

My wording was unfortunate; I am in English but I should have said I'm in a different subfield from you. Hm. It does seem concerning that they'd say "most of our PhD students have received their MAs at Illinois" but given @Warelin's anecdotal evidence I'm not sure what to think. It seems like a waste to apply to a program where I'd automatically have less of a chance than other applicants (I've also opted not to apply to Berkeley, Northwestern, and PSU as they prefer BA-only applicants) but perhaps worth it if it ends up being a really exciting program for me. I guess first step is to do some more research and determine if that's the case, and then if so I may take you up on the message (@Warelin).

Can you elaborate on this? I'm not in the same fields as you but I've been checking them out. Wouldn't want to waste an application if I'm not likely to get in (like you, I'll be coming in with an external MA)

This is a bit off-topic but sparks something I've been thinking about: is it appropriate to hone in on and mention in SoPs faculty who are working in different subfields and even different periods than you are but who seem to be driven by the same kinds of questions or who for whatever reason seem to employ methodologies that resonate with you? I've come across a number of faculty members who are interested in some of the same topics as me (in particular I'm thinking about things like "modernity", industrialization, genealogies of modernity) but who are working in different periods (I usually find these people are in Modernism whereas I'm in Romantic). I wouldn't say those are my absolute primary interests, but they form part of a project for me. Would it be appropriate to -- if I'm selecting 3 POIs in my head -- decide a program is fitting if there's say, a Romanticist, an aestheticist who resonates with me, and someone interested in the broader ideas/questions I mentioned? And then perhaps another 2 Romanticists who have different interests than me but could nonetheless supply expertise in the field. It seems like I'm coming across programs with this sort of array much more frequently than I'm finding 3 Romanticists with the same subfields as me.

Thanks, @unræd and @klader. I realize it's important to take into consideration both that I should account in advance for the possible need for external funding in the final dissertating years and the possibility that I may be able to get done "early." I won't be going in with a 2-year MA but rather a 1-year MA, so I am hoping for 6 years (I'd like the two full years of classes) but we'll see what happens further along down the line. It definitely sounds like a line of questioning for current students at the programs I apply to, anyway.

@klader This is a good point and something I often think about: how useful is it to narrow down programs based on my interest when my interest may change by the time I'm applying? I should add, though, that my MA is only a 1-year program, so I'm applying fall of 2019 for 2020 entry. I think timeline-wise I'll be beginning my SoP next summer and I'd like to have my list of programs done before then, so my plan was to research thoroughly maybe a program a week until I can get my list of 38 down to a list of 10-15 next summer. That way I won't be overwhelming myself with intensive PhD research at some point during my MA; rather it's spread out and I can also use the time to figure out "My Thing."

Thanks, @Warelin! Now I feel a bit silly for worrying about this; I overlooked the possibility that it's not even an option for prospective applicants to arrange formal visits. I think it was the wording on Stanford's FAQ page about visiting that made me think it was an option/something expected prior to application. This is a bit relieving as I don't have a lot of time and am hoping to just do some drive-bys of the campuses/towns.

Apologies as I seem to be full of questions lately... I'm attempting to use the next month to hit program research hard because it's the last I have before beginning my MA! I find myself in a position where I'll be traveling around the east coast for work next month and I believe it will be useful to visit some campuses on my way from points A to B to C. Right now I'm at a very large first-round list of about 40+ programs, so I'm thinking at the very least, seeing the areas where universities are in person will help me gauge whether I could see myself living there or not. But I'm wondering if I should be doing more than this. My application cycle isn't until 2020 -- should I be trying to arrange visits with departments at this stage? At this point I don't have a very solid handle on my research interests and I certainly don't feel equipped to wow anyone who might be on an adcom. But I also don't know how useful talking to faculty could be for me since this is not a situation where I have a firm list of 20 programs that I'm trying to narrow down to the final batch -- I really haven't started narrowing down based on faculty work yet. Will anyone even be there over the summer? Should I just do my own quick self-guided visits and then look into visiting departments next year? Ideas? Opinions? Anecdotes?

I'm curious where you'll be (though no need to share if you don't want to). I am also undertaking a 1-year MA in the UK beginning this fall and planning to apply to PhD programs for fall 2020. The reason UK DPhils are only 3 years long is that UK students specialize in undergrad (and really even before this because of the A-Levels system). Unlike myself, who took general ed courses and generally messed around in undergrad before I figured out what I wanted to do (and even then didn't take that many literature courses), UK students have been taking intensive literature courses and generally only intensive literature courses since day one of undergrad. The learning system encourages very focused knowledge of the areas crucial to graduate school and it encourages that they choose and hone in on their area of specialty by the third year. This is especially true of students coming from Oxbridge; their personal tutor system (in place of what I think are rather useless undergrad discussion classes & seminars) and the intensity of work that comes with it ensures that they're extraordinarily well-versed in research and secondary literature (not to mention primary literature) and are operating at the graduate level by the time they leave university. Then -- and here's the big difference between US and UK graduate school in English, though you may well already know this -- all hopeful graduate students in the UK complete some type of terminal MA. This is usually taught but with a dissertation component, like the programs you and I are doing. Some of them then go on to an MPhil after that, though not all of them, and then they go on to do the DPhil. All this to say the reason the DPhil is much shorter and is pure research is that by the time UK students arrive to do it, they've already completed the coursework that the US PhD requires in its first 2 years. Most US students will not be prepared to jump into a UK DPhil -- it's the equivalent of being thrown into a US PhD during year 3 or 4. I was told by a very distinguished professor at my undergrad (which is a top 15 program) that he attempted to do just an MPhil at Cambridge (and he only got in because he wrote them letters about why he was able to do it even though he hadn't already done a significant research degree) and he felt wildly underprepared, having underestimated completely what it would be like. I will also second @Warelin's advice. I have been told by most every faculty member I've talked to that a UK DPhil is not seen by hiring committees as the equivalent of a US PhD. A lot of this has to do with the lack of teaching component in the UK (it will be very difficult to get a job in the US without prior teaching experience), but there are other things missing from the UK DPhil that are frankly expected of any recent PhD in the US. UK (and most other European) DPhil programs are incredibly independent. There is minimal one-on-one support, minimal job market preparation, in most places no encouragement or preparation for conferences and generally no funding for them, and little preparation or encouragement in the way of applying for external (or internal) fellowships. US PhDs offer much more support, in short, but support in areas that are really crucial to the candidate's CV and job market-readiness. Also, I'm not sure what your financial situation is like, but UK DPhils also very, very rarely fund US students. You would need to find external funding. And things like Marshall scholarships are not available to students who have already spent a year or more studying in the UK. If your eventual goal is to do your post-doc in the UK and look for positions there, a UK DPhil might not be a bad idea. But these universities (like all other industries) will also generally favor candidates they don't have to sponsor for a visa, unless you have a strong connection there already. You might also scout around some US faculty CVs at different programs and see where they've gotten their PhDs from. There are definitely more than a few UK degrees in there, but you'll also notice that most of those people are British. I don't believe it is very common for a US citizen to train in the UK and then return to the US for a university position, but maybe consider reaching out to those that have to see if they have an opinion to offer. Personally, I think the UK terminal MA presents an ideal opportunity for those (like me) who went through undergrad not knowing graduate school would be the next step. It's a great way to work out your research interests and beef up your stats for PhD admissions. Because of it and before even starting it I am hopeful about my chances in the 2020 cycle but if I were applying to PhD programs straight from undergrad I know 100% not a single program would have accepted me. That said, I'll definitely be limiting myself to programs in the US for 2020.

@victoriansimpkins This is awesome! Hopefully your GRE score won't be viewed against your research and work elsewhere but it certainly helps that it isn't required there at all. Nebraska is on my first-round list at the moment so that sounds like a vote in its favor for sure.

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

Me too! I was really surprised to see this because I haven't come across other programs that don't require either GRE to be taken yet and Stanford is a huge one. For anyone else interested, here is the link to the admissions page ("The GRE general exam and subject exam are no longer required for admission to the English PhD program.") It looks like they haven't had a chance to update their FAQ page yet, which still says both GREs are required.

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...

So after sifting through the ones with language that seems to probably indicate most or all students are funded (and removing some more based on location), I'm left with: UC Davis (competitive, especially for out-of-staters) Northwestern (looks to be competitive) UC San Diego (unclear) Florida State (unclear, seems like it is probably not funded) I'll probably email the respective DGSs but thought I'd leave the list here too in case anyone else has insider info.

Got it, @klader and @a_sort_of_fractious_angel. I think I'm starting to crack this terrible phrasing...

Do you all think it's a good idea to only drop the programs that very explicitly say funding is only offered to some students and is definitely competitive?

Thank you so much! You have no idea how happy this has made me. But... why can't they say this on their website!? It is so strange to me that these programs are not advertising these major selling points. But then again, given what @Warelin has mentioned above, perhaps it is in their best interests not to. @Warelin: thanks for the tip on searching the program's name in the board and seeing what others have been offered. I think at this point I can narrow this list down to a number that's more workable so that I can either do that, email the respective DGSs, or ask students directly if they've received funding. @a_sort_of_fractious_angel The website's wording is so strange: "All PhD applicants for full-time study are automatically considered for departmental financial support. These awards are based on academic merit, not financial need." If you know the program is fully-funded, I guess the latter statement is actually meant to be reassuring, telling prospective applicants that they'll be offered funding if they get into the program regardless of their income level. But to someone who doesn't know that, it makes it sound competitive and "considered for funding" definitely makes it sound competitive. Anyway, I'm definitely taking your word for it that it's funded. But thank you for the offer! I'm not sure yet whether Buffalo will be on my "finalists" list.

Thanks so much for the info. Here's what I found on Miami U: https://miamioh.edu/cas/academics/departments/english/admission/graduate-admission/graduate-funding/index.html The "nearly all" language implies that there is ample funding but also scares me off a little bit. It may be a case of bureaucratic inability to guarantee funding on the website, like what @Ramus suggested about OSU?

Kansas: so when a website says like, for example, Kansas' does, something like "A GTA appointment includes ten semesters of stipend/remission", should I take that to mean the program guarantees funding? I guess I was looking for that type of language specifically, so when it just explains what the GTA is, I'm left wondering whether everyone gets one or not. Brandeis: a different situation -- says "most" of our students. Should I take language like this to mean guaranteed funding as well? I think there were a few others on my list that also said most/nearly all. Same thing going on for Michigan State -- again, to me just looks like a list of what might be offered with no language about who it's offered to. The language that threw me off on Vanderbilt's website was "University Tuition Scholarships are service-free awards that pay all or part of tuition costs." And it looks like this is the only funding first year students can receive, right? I'm just so confused by all this language that makes it seem like there is ample funding but doesn't explicitly say so. I don't see a difference between Michigan State's laundry list of what's offered and, for example, UC Davis' log of the fellowships and assistantships they offer; both seem not guaranteed to me. Regarding location: Seattle I'd be willing to live in or outside of just because I'd love to live in Washington and to live so close to the national parks around there. San Diego similar situation, and I guess I decided Boston was one of those "I really don't want to live there but my options are limited" places. Columbus and Nashville I didn't realize were that big and will probably go (I wasn't too interested in OSU or the south anyway). Thanks a ton as always. Let me know if there are others on the list that catch your eye (I was particularly disappointed by Oregon, Washington, UC Davis, UC Santa Barbara, UC Irvine, UNC, San Diego, Nebraska, Amherst, and Utah..off the top of my head I know we've discussed Washington's strange funding situation before).

Thanks for the recommendation, @Bumblebea, I'll check him out. Funnily enough, I heard a talk from someone at Oxford this morning generally revolving around the poetic "anxiety of influence" but his angle had to do with "injecting" the reasonable, culturally-charged literary studies with mysticism and a sense of the abstract. I'm not sure how he's faring in the academic job market but it was a cool lecture to hear at just the right time; it really resonated with the ways I've been thinking about my own approaches (which are admittedly not "mystical" but still somewhat similar).

Thanks, @Ramus! I was wondering about this one because an alumn of OSU at my undergrad was always raving about Ohio State's "fully-funded program." If Ohio ends up being one of the programs I'm looking at, I wonder what the funding situation might be like for me. I'll be coming in with an external British MA which is just one year of coursework, so I wonder if they would acknowledge that or not. I guess that's the kind of thing I would have to discuss with them upon possible acceptance. Do you find that the $18.5k is enough for you? It looks like COL in Columbus is relatively low.

Hey all, I've talked to a few of you about the difficulty I'm having determining if programs are indeed funded or not. I've heard from several people that almost every program within the top 30-50 is funded but I'm finding this to not be at all true, at least as stated on program websites and handbooks. I know this might be different in practice (i.e. they aren't allowed to explicitly say on their website that they can guarantee students funding for 5-6 years but they nonetheless do); however, I've also been advised to not apply to programs that don't guarantee full funding for 5-6 years. If anyone is feeling up to it, please feel free to look over the below list of programs that do not guarantee funding and correct me if you see anything that seems wrong (and it would be great if you could point me to the source that suggests otherwise): Oregon (TAships available in later years but not to first years. Nothing is guaranteed.) University of Washington (same as Oregon) Yale (seems funded in practice but funding for dissertating years is not guaranteed) Brandeis (unclear -- says all PhD students are offered remission/fellowship but also says all graduate students should expect to cover some portion of their tuition) Michigan State (awards available on a competitive basis) University of Iowa (awards available on a competitive basis) UC Davis (awards available on a competitive basis) UC Santa Barbara (awards available on a competitive basis) Texas A&M (all students receive some funding but it does not cover the full cost of tuition) Vanderbilt (unclear -- suggests all students receive funding for 5 years but also says the tuition scholarship may only cover part of the cost of tuition) UC Irvine ("committed" to providing financial support to students but nothing is guaranteed.) SUNY Buffalo (when offered, fellowships last for 5 years, but they are awarded competitively based on merit) Arizona State (admits a massive cohort and funds 1/3 of it) UNC Chapel Hill (TAships and incoming-student RAships available on a competitive basis) UConn (attempts to provide funding but does not guarantee it) University of Tennessee Knoxville (has a list of TAships & fellowships available but says nothing about who these are offered to) UC San Diego (not guaranteed to all students and do not cover full tuition/fees) Northwestern (funding offered on a competitive basis and external funding applications are encouraged) Indiana Bloomington (only discusses first-year funding and suggests that this funding is not offered to everyone) Ohio State (the department "attempts" to provide students with funding; not full and not guaranteed) Nebraska Lincoln (students are eligible for up to 6 years of funding but it is not guaranteed) UMass Amherst (TAships available through separate application; nothing is guaranteed) Purdue (funding options are listed but not guaranteed; nothing is stated about who receives them and how) Utah (nothing is stated about funding except a list of some TAships and fellowships they might offer) Florida State (same as Utah) Northeastern (unclear -- it seems like they might offer 5 years of funding but nothing is guaranteed. Students are awarded funding "at the recommendation of the department") University of Florida (only provides 4 years of funding) University of Kansas (no information provided about funding) University of Missouri ("most" students are offered support) University of Wisconsin Milwaukee (TAships are for 5 years when offered but they are not offered to everyone) Louisiana State Baton Rouge (no information about funding provided) Miami University ("nearly all" students are funded) If a program isn't on this list I've either found it to be fully funded or it doesn't meet my minimal location preference (no big cities). With these programs subtracted from my list, I'm left with a list of 29 total funded programs to work with. It sounds like a great number, but not when you consider that I have not narrowed down at all based on fit/faculty yet (even at the most basic level) and most of them are not in places where I'd want to live. Also, a good number of those that guarantee funding are Ivies/top 20 programs and I'd like to have more range than that. Thank you in advance for any information you contribute! Edit: I should add that I began with the US News list of the top 60-70 programs, so I also haven't included in my list most programs that are ranked after about 70 on there. I don't plan on using the rankings for any further narrowing-down but it seemed like the best way to gather a gigantic starter list. Second edit: For Literature, FYI, not Rhet/Comp.

@Bumblebea This makes a lot of sense, thank you. My primary period of interest is actually Romanticism, which I think is a period that obviously interacts heavily with its political contexts (French Revolution etc, I'm not so much interested in this) and its position in a dramatically changing modern world (more interested in this, as I've mentioned above). I think once I learn more about the period this kind of dialectic between the formal and the social will be a useful way of figuring my interests because I've always seen my interests in "modernity" and its symptoms -- early capitalism etc -- and in aesthetics/form as two distinct areas. But perhaps I'll find them coalescing as I continue to learn and that will make that angle emerge naturally, as you've suggested.