snorkles

all of them?!

Yes, yes it is. If you have been accepted, then you don't need to prove yourself. I imagine the conversations are to illustrate interests and not competency.

Program of a year overall. Per period/field you can expect 1-2 on average a year, I imagine.

Stipends are taxed. Also, to those going on visits: ASK ABOUT EXTRA CAMPUS/SERVICE FEES! It's rough, y'all.

But also enjoy it! Everyone has earned this attention, and I think it's important to indulge it. They do want to recruit you and potentially work with you. It is, however, part of the job. So enjoy but don't develop unrealistic expectations out of it. Also, response emails don't need to be effusive. There's no reason to sell yourself anymore. (Though I have heard some horror stories about odious students turning off faculty, so don't be that person!).

So this is the recruiting stage. This is a part of their job, and it doesn't necessarily reflect an immediate desire to develop a close relationship with you. It also doesn't not mean that, but I say this for others who may get caught up in the wonderful attention you'll be getting: Don't be surprised if you're left to your own devices once you actually begin the program. In terms of the emails, respond like a human is the easiest bit of advice. I preferred phone conversations, had they offered that option in the email. Ask about their mentoring style and department culture around that topic. Or ask about how they like living in whatever city. My conversations varied from talking about my work or their work to the structure of the program to general life things. You can pretty much ask whatever you like, but keep in mind that it's hard to read those conversations as more than exchanging niceties during the recruitment process. That said, I did vibe with the faculty at the program I chose more than others. It was an important factor for me, too.

Play video games. Watch Netflix. Enjoy your last months of true freedom.

My project also pitched a specific idea, a rough set of texts, and a few pieces of theory in the constellation of what I imagined I'd study. I did not make an effort to showcase how it changes my field, though, mainly because I wasn't informed enough to make those claims. I think a lot of the SoP is just a litmus test to see if you can formulate a viable project. Again, speaking the language. I also think this route is better than listing a vague sense of what your interests are.

I think this is fair. I was able to attend Berkeley for 2 years, and presumably I had good letters written for me, but I was not guided through the process at all. Others in my program, who went to much lower ranked schools for undegrad, had faculty mentors who were heavily invested in them (not a critique of Cal here) and I think it shows/showed in their ability to navigate these spaces much more functionally than me.

I definitely think prestige plays a role. I don't agree with the mentality that it's a singular barrier to entry, nor do I think that it's worthwhile to dwell on the question of whether it is or isn't. So much of academia is learning to speak the language. When I was shut out my first cycle, I was caught up in similar patterns of thought (ageism, first half of undergrad in community college, first generation student, and the list goes on), but I settled on the more productive notion that maybe I didn't speak the language as well as others and that had I presented my materials differently then maybe I would have had more success. Biases, patterns of selection, etc. all factor into this system, absolutely, but I just don't think writing off one's failures to them is worthwhile in the long run.

I'm a very nontraditional student. Chicago and Brown, at least, didn't seem to care last year. Add those to the list, I suppose--though I don't know how I feel about the advice to avoid Ivies otherwise. If it comes down to finances, I suppose one might exercise some guesswork and apply to what seems viable. I'm partially responding to some frustrations in other threads here about academia only caring about prestige. Maybe, maybe not. It just doesn't help to think that way if you're trying to succeed within said system. Biggest thing I've learned, which I utterly failed to take advantage of, is to get eyes on your materials. Nearly every person I've encountered who has had major success has had close relationships with faculty who guided their applications. Really, guiding their success in general--which is not trying to undermine anyone's hard work. Having a network of close mentors in undergrad forward means an extraordinary amount in academia.

Sounds like you'll fit in really well here. I look forward to meeting you next week.

Sorry I'm late on this. Assuming things are like last year, they will cover X amount for travel (should be enough to cover your flight, unless you're international) and will book everyone in a hotel for a couple nights. I believe the rest of your stay is on you. They should (probably already have) reach out about all this info.

This is wonderful. I agree 100 percent.

Congrats! The faculty at Cal are wonderful. Great vibes there.

Speaking as someone in their second quarter at Chicago, I can say that I would have been happier at another program if it meant my partner could come. This is to say nothing about the program at Chicago. It's great. But once you're here and settled, it all becomes normalized and you realize that great people and programs are everywhere. A committed, supportive partner is less common. Edit because ambiguity: My partner was able to come with me, and it has made everything much easier.

This. Be honest about what you don't know.

I sent one after my interview, only because of some prompting language during the interview itself. I don't know that it's necessary/expected/beneficial in most cases. I received a response from one of my interviewers. As for your wanting to crawl into a hole and die, I know the feeling. Faculty are good at reading through nerves, I want to believe. Cringe can be okay as long as it doesn't read as pompous. Just remember that they want to like you!

Congrats!

I can't say with any certainty about the people who declined their offer, but everyone in my cohort was interviewed, which includes English and TAPS.

This is correct.

I think the best thing you can do to prepare for an interview is to review your materials. It can be helpful to think about how your project might branch out in the future. Being personable is also important, I believe. I've heard some intense interview stories, but mine with Chicago was very pleasant (despite my stumbling over answers and feeling extraordinarily dumb).

I'm fairly certain that everyone is interviewed. At least, everyone admitted last year was interviewed.

There's an interesting lack of aesthetics in this discussion.

As far as interdisciplinary work, Chicago embraces that approach. Only a few in my cohort are interested in canonical works. One person is interested in new media theory, for example. Others are interested in object studies. Queer theory, affect, gender and sexuality, history of sexuality and biopolitics are all big here too. Anywhere you go, you're going to be engaging with texts in a substantial way, whether those are literary, critical, or theoretical texts. In this way, literature never goes away. It's reasonable that you don't know exactly what you want to study, but if you're thinking about any PhD program, you'd want to situate yourself in a field before applying. It might be useful to spend the remainder of your MA experience trying to figure out what those interests are and how they intersect.