wreckofthehope

Oxford is really quite strong in Romanticism... although, some faculty may have retired recently. People I know of working in the area are: Lucy Newlyn (Teddy Hall), Seamus Perry (Balliol) and Tom Paulin (Hertford). However, they're not big on theory (at least, anything other than than a very diluted New Historicism) - so, I can see this may be where they wouldn't appeal. You should be able to access the current lecture list here: https://weblearn.ox....y/humdiv/engfac to get an idea of what's available, and people's areas of interest. There will probably be more Romantics lectures and classes in Hilary Term (after Christmas) as that's when Romantics is usually taught to undergrads.

They moved the place where I was sitting the exam without telling anyone! - There was a note written in Biro behind the forsted glass on the door letting us know... but no-one noticed it until 8:30! So, then we had to run like crazy people through an unfamiliar city trying to find this new building. They didn't even apologize when we got there... just carried on as normal, and as if we were at fault for being a bit late. It was not a good way to start an exam.

I was astonished by the amount of C18th questions - they were making me doubt myself: I assumed I must have made some massive errors in identification.

I took it on Saturday too... had to travel to a different city to do so; so, just got back. Eugh, it's such a beast, I was unbelievably exhausted when I finished! For me, it was slightly less difficult than the practice tests I took... but I'm not sure that actually means anything - since such a large proportion were educated guesses!

I have only had contact with profs at a couple of programs that I'm applying to and was wondering whether or not to send emails to people at the other programs...I wasn't going to... but then, when I started filling out applications, quite a few ask you to name professors who you have been in contact with - and the dates you first contacted them, that scared me a little - as if it was absolutely expected of you. Do you think, in those cases, that they actually want you to contact people?

Just my recent experience: at some of my schools, where I have been in contact with a number of people, I've made sure it is O.K. for me to mention names in my SOP - profs have answered unanimously: yes. In fact, many have said not only are they absolutely happy for me to do it - but it is expected. So, that's from the horse's mouth, so to speak.

Thank you for that reply. I'm sorry this got so heated, I was just frustrated by what I perceived to be an assumption that the values of one education system should be universal.

I took it earlier today: 700V and 470Q. That math score is, well, appalling... but it's a massive improvement from my diagnostic (350 lol) - so, I'm quite happy.

I think maybe it would help if I explained the system that I'm used to working within: We specialize early, and we go into depth in one subject and one subject only (unless you're doing a dual degree). As a result an English degree is expected to cover pretty much the whole of English (British)Literature at a fairly deep level. In some universities here which have a modular system and allow for something like electives - you would certainly be able to take in-depth courses in particular areas of American Literature, although this would be much more likely in a dual course that combines English with American Lit' or with American Studies. On no account would these be necessary for the completion of an English degree. However, many universities, my own included, do not have modules per-se - there is a designated course that you follow, with scope for indivdual choice allowed only within certain parameters i.e choice of which authors to study within a specified time-period. Our set course looked like this: 1st year: Introduction to Literary Studies Victorian Lit' Modern Lit' Old English 2nd year: The English Language English Literature from 1100 to 1509 English Literature from 1509 to 1642 English Literature from 1642 to 1740 English Literature from 1740 to 1832 Extended Essay (mini thesis) on a choice of authors, two groupings of which are American. 3rd Year: Shakespeare Extended Essay on a choice of topics - one of which is American Lit' It was entirely possible, and very much done, to never study American Literature during your entire degree. I'm not saying I think that's a particularly wise choice, especially for someone who wants to go on to graduate work, but it is possible - and I don't think it's fair to suggest that someone who does choose that path is unqualified to study English. I actually chose both American Lit' topics for my extended essays - since I did want as rounded a picture as I could get of English Lit' from within my degree system. But still - two isolated in-depth projects are not particularly useful for understanding American Lit' as a whole and I would, quite honestly, have preferred a general survey course which would have at least given me some knowledge of comparitively less well known authors and movements. This post is merely meant to provide context to my earlier posts - I hope you can see that within the scope of my degree at least, there was very little room for manoeuvre, expecting someone coming from that system to have extensive knowledge of American Literature just seems a bit ridiculous to me.

The implications of your statement are entirely uncalled for and incredibly solipsistic. You've mis-construed my words throughout this conversation for reasons that I can't quite fathom... At no point have I said that no American Literature should be taught in British English departments (I have admitted that very little was taught in mine). What I did say was that it is perfectly reasonable that some authors considered enormously important from within the cultural mileu of the U.S. are not taught in British schools due to the time limits of an undergrad' curriculum and the need to include British authors of similar import to the development of British Lit'. What on earth is controversial about that statement? Branwen - we seem to be in agreement - my earlier description of a degree that specializes in British Literature and includes some surveys of American and other literatures chimes pretty well with what you are describing I think... Edit: reading back through the thread, I think I assumed a level of continuity between my posts that may not have been apparent due to some quite loosely employed terms - so, sorry about that.

What I'm saying is that the breadth and depth of an undergraduate degree is not limitless. Universities are going to want to provide their students with a solid grounding in the literary culture of the country they are in; I am in no way saying that DuBois has no place in an English curriculum, but that it is entirely understandable that British departments would chose NOT to teach him given the fact that their curriculum is limited and there are a large number of equally worthy writers whose work has a specific bearing on the context of literature in Britain. In an ideal world, we'd have the time to do courses on every aspect of all literatures written in English; as it is, I think it neither odd nor ridiculous to want to ground your students in the literary culture of the country they live in. Once that is done, there is probably only space for survey courses in other literatures which necessarily leave out a great deal. edit after reading the above edit: I think you're misunderstanding what I am equating with what - it should read as swapping a course on DuBois solely for a course on Kitchen Sink... not American Literature as a whole(!), ie a course on DuBois in a British degree and a course on Kitchen Sink Realism in an American degree. I'd also like to point out, that I actually think it's extremely important that a graduate student of literature should study as widely and deeply as possible - as many literatures in English as possible, and as many foreign literatures as possible. I just don't think it's either do-able, or necessary, at the undergraduate level where the vast majority of students are not going to go on to further study or work in the area.

Absolutely - do you have an answer? Should a British English department be expected to include courses on American Literature, quite possibly at the expense of courses on the literature of their own country, within the syllabus of an undergraduate degree? Would it be a good idea to swap the study of DuBois in an American degree for a course on British Kitchen Sink realism?

Yeah - sorry, I wasn't sure if you were joking or not, but decided the lack of a smiley suggested you weren't, and if you weren't, well... it was just too silly a statement to pass by. Very interesting stuff on Wheatley, thank you - and yes, I was a bit too sweeping with my dismissal of possible transnational concerns. WIth that in mind, I think there's a good probability that if you were to study Romanticism seriously at the grad' level here then you'd come across her (by grad' I mean a taught Master's), but definitely not at undergrad'. I can't think of where else she would fit, other than the social context of Romanticism, within a British department, and you probably wouldn't get that deep a picture at the undergrad' level. Admittedly, (British) Romanticism is a period I loathe, so I've put myself at a double disadvantage when it comes to Wheatley it seems.

Goodness, wouldn't that be an original response. The discipline has certain foundational texts, it's hardly surprising that the vast majority are British. Could more be done to integrate knowledge of other literatures in English into the canon? - Certainly. But, there is only so much ground you can cover during the course of an undergraduate degree, and the focus of English departments everywhere is going to be coloured by their local history and academic climate. Dubois and Wheatley, whose importance to American Literature you kindly informed me of, are, I'm sure, very interesting writers but their particular importance is, it seems, especially a social one, and that social role is tied to a specifically American locale. We have plenty of people similarly important from a British point of view who, I'm fairly sure, are not taught, and probably never read, in the States. I really don't think that is either surprising or upsetting. It's exciting for me to think that there is a whole new continent of work out there that I haven't yet gotten my hands on.

Indeed I do, my sister did American Studies for undergrad so I've stolen hers - but, I haven't had a chance to really look through it yet, what with my job, my MA thesis and the normal GRE to study for, bleurgh. I got a pretty good score on the practice test, so I'm not overly worried. It really is the American Lit' I need to learn, even if all that entails is learning a bunch of names and dates and vague stylistic badges so that I can guess with slightly greater accuracy. Part of the reason I want to come and do my PhD in the states is to get greater exposure to American Lit' - it's just not on the radar here (except in American Studies departments and a few progressively integrative English departments) but, frankly, why should it be? I've had a fantastic grounding in British Literature, and then continental theory (esp. psychoanalysis) through my MA, I'm hoping a PhD in the States will broaden my knowledge base and really round me out, making me more attractive come employment time.

Ah, thanks. I'm British btw, and I went to an extremely traditional undergrad' school here in England- the only reason I studied ANY American literature is because I chose to write my thesis on Dickinson.

Why all the love for the godawful Herrick?! And excuse my idiocy but who are Dubois and Wheatley?... the kind of people you learn about in intro' to American lit' courses I assume (damn you, ENGLISH literature undergrad' - we literally only studied British Literature... with James and Eliot co-opted of course)

Hey - well done, those are good scores! I'm frantically re-learning all my forgotten math rules as we speak...

I'm not sure you can call reading Middle English "translating" - it's just a slightly older version of the same language we're using now. Anglo Saxon... perhaps, but yeah - I haven't seen any questions that ask you to read Anglo Saxon (although I DID study it in undergrad'). All in all it's a fairly ridiculous test - we're all going to have areas we're weak on, mine is pretty much all American lit' outside the big C19th hitters and some Modern drama... but, the reason so few people score very highly on this test is surely just this reason - we're all equally handicapped by lack of knowledge in one area... lacking the medieval preparation is probably not that bad in the grand scheme of things as there are relatively few questions on the period it seems....

Thank you so much for your reply, It seems like it may not be as difficult as I had thought to get "common-law" status - I'll look into this some more, as it would definitely put my mind at ease if I knew we could do this. I hope he wouldn't have too much of a problem getting a job as I'm looking at UBC and Toronto, and both cities have an office of the (very large) company he currently works for, he wouldn't be able to directly transfer, but still... it's a foot in the door. I looked at the Canadian immigration website and apparently he could probably qualify on the skilled worker scheme so perhaps that is another way, if we can't get common-law status. Are you also international? I'd be interested to know how you are finding UBC and Vancouver. The department I'm applying to is probably the best fit of all my applications, but I've never even been to Canada so I'm worried that I have far too rosy a picture of what it is like, it has such a reputation for friendliness, liveability and generousness - it can't all be true, can it?!

Ah yes, just truly exceptional then.

Oh also - It may be worth you checking out Master's degrees in Scandinavia, the Netherlands and Germany, and a few other European countries. They all offer graduate degrees taught entirely in English and , especially in Scandinavia, there is NO tuition. There are some great universities offering these courses, especially Lund and Uppsala in Sweden, and the University of Amsterdam. Something like this may be appealing: http://www.lu.se/o.o.i.s/7755

The numbers applying for PhD's here are tiny compared to the States and Canada - even Cambridge has something like a 50% acceptance rate. For MA's, at the big powerhouses, there are a fair number of applicants but, even then, far fewer than in North America. Everywhere else, I suspect there are not that many applicants at all... and even if there were, to simplify massively, it wouldn't be much of a problem since the universities fund no-one... they're only making money from taking more students, not losing it. I applied for one MA, I sent in my application materials on a Monday, and on Wednesday I received an acceptance, and this was in May of the year I wanted to start! If they are saying they'll consider your application, I would think you have a very good chance of acceptance - since, as you say, there are no application fees, the only thing you would lose by applying is a little time... seems silly not to to me. There is a deadline in mid-March for applicants who want to be considered for research council funding, but since you are not eligible that does not apply to you . Since most people apply around February to meet that deadline, you may gain some advantage by applying before Christmas, but I certainly wouldn't think it was really necessary.

You submitted one piece of work for different courses - how does that work? Where did you study in the U.K. ? At my undergrad' institution anything above about a 76 was so rare as to be truly, truly, truly exceptional. (but maybe you're just one of those truly exceptional people ) TO the OP - Jmews' advice to contact individual departments is absolutely spot -on, they'll be honest about your chances and, with work experience, I expect you'll have a fair chance (don't emphasize your grades as being bad though the way you did in your original post).

Hi, I'm from the U.K., so hopefully can be of some help... Usually, for entry to a Master's program, you would be expected to have achieved at least a 2i at the undergraduate level. I expect that your averages in the 60's are likely to equate to 2ii level here, unfortunately. An average in the British system of between 60 and 69 would get you a 2i here, with low 60's being the equivalent of a B+ and high 60's an A-... more or less. The highest marks people get here are generally in the mid 70's. I've seen one person get an 80, once. So, basically I would say you need to minus 10-15 marks from your average to give you a general idea of what the equivalent average would be in the U.K. By those calculations you'd be quite low in the 2ii range. However, all that said, programmes do fairly often take people who have relevant non-academic experience with lower grades, and (although I don't want to insult you, or anyone else) foreign students are quite regularly admitted with less than sparkling academic records, because they almost always have to pay enormous international fees. I wouldn't count yourself out of the running, you'd definitely have a shot - especially with relevant work experience ( and you may as well apply to the LSE if you like one of the courses there, what have you got to lose? ).