3131

To backtrack a bit: I don’t want to be absolutist about this. It may be possible that some subfields don’t interview all their finalists; I just know in my own, every accepted student was interviewed and this seems to be the case with others, but my knowledge is obviously partial, unscientifically gathered, and a year old, so anything is possible!

Hello! Current first year Columbia student lurking on these forums... I thought it might be helpful to clarify to all that Columbia narrows down its applicants by subfield and then basically they all have a big meeting to negotiate how many students they want/are able to accept from each subfield. Whether they want to use interviews to help narrow down their list of finalists is up to the individual subfield, and plenty of people got in who were never interviewed. I will say, at risk of disappointing, that subfields that do interview will interview *every* finalist, so if someone else interviewed in your subfield, that unfortunately isn’t a good sign. Also Columbia does not give merit money. The standard fellowship is a named fellowship so it may look like it’s “fancy” but the graduate school clarified that it’s the same for everyone.

Yes, it does. Did you get off the waitlist?!!

@The Wordsworthian @sugilite Thank you!

thought this may ease some of your minds: I've been admitted to NYU, CUNY, Rutgers, and Columbia thus far, and accepted Columbia's offer a few days ago. I contacted the admissions department from each of the other schools about my decision yesterday and have received responses from all, so for those waitlisted or especially waiting for responses from Rutgers, spots are opening up! And to future members of my cohort: hello!

Obviously futile hope, but are we *sure* that Yale has sent out all its acceptances? Weren’t only two posted on the board? That seems exceptionally low, especially compared to Princeton/Columbia. And they were via phone. (It’s the last big thing I’m waiting on and am impatient...)

@optimistic_nihilist do you know whether it was phone/email?

This is also an excellent point. And @barshmie I think you're right on the money in saying that its lifespan is dependent upon the framework within which it was conceived, and now it may have to be reconfigured precisely because it was (broadly speaking) successful. @swarthmawr, your comment reminded me of the incredible history of "Ethnic Studies" at Columbia University, where I did my undergrad work. A professor I had in the Astronomy Dept (don't ask why I was taking a class there...lol) who's a POC was one of the leaders of the historic, courageous, and extraordinarily venerable hunger strikes of the late 1990s, which successfully persuaded the University to create an Ethnic Studies department. You're right that those kinds of efforts and the historical context of the desperate need for "Ethnic studies" must not be forgotten.

This is an excellent point and I completely agree.

Sorry for the late response. Also disclaimer that this is not at all my subfield so my opinion is very inexpert. But my first reaction is just that I find “ethnic literature” to be an incredibly unuseful term. “Global literature” seems helpful insofar as it indicates that literatures indigenous to places other than Britain and the United States are being considered (while historically this hasn’t been the case). But “ethnic literature” describes...what exactly? Jews, Irish and Italians are some examples of white ethnic groups in the US that all have distinct literatures and histories, but are implicitly excluded from the “ethnic literature” category. Also, using “ethnic literature” to refer to literature by what we now consider to be people of color also seems troublesome, as it implicitly excludes those literatures from preexisting categories, when I think that those literatures are already and ought to be considered a fundamental element of those subfields. (For example, if I study Mexican literature written in 20th c America, I’m fundamentally a 20th c Americanist who focuses on a particular ethnic group that exists within my subfield. This is a much better description than someone who studies “ethnic literature.”) So yeah. Tl;dr I think “ethnicity” is too historically contingent a term to be useful, erases the presence of white ethnic groups, and also kind of displaces nonwhite ethnic groups from the place they should already have in literary studies within a particular historical period.

Was it that one of their subfields was “Ethnic” literature? I couldn’t believe they said that, especially since they have pretty strong Postcolonial/global modernist faculty. Like, all you can do is chuckle, but come on, guys.

@dangermouse and @barshmie Oh my god, thank you so much for your kindness. Really. I wish you all the best of luck, and many good options at the end of the cycle! ❤️

Unfortunately, I believe it was. I am one of the accepted students and have already received the email providing more detail about the program, listing dates for the accepted students day, etc. I'm sorry that you didn't receive better news! If it's any consolation, they accepted fewer than 3.5% of applicants this year, so it's like winning the lottery / a complete crapshoot.

I have no idea. If I were to guess, though, it's probably motivated by boredom or a sort of passive curiosity, not by an actual desire to scope out info on applicants. But you can never be too careful! (At least with the investment I've put into this.)

I'm sorry for being so reticent, but I am making it a policy to reveal as little personal/subjective info on here as possible, as it's been made known to me that some profs actually do lurk here, and after all this effort I would really love not to fuck it up lol. All I will say is that I am enthusiastic!