As a UCI alumnus, I also want to add some balance to Blop's comments, which set an unfortunate tone, and betray (to mind mind) a personal disposition that's a poor match for the public mission of a public school. I loved UCI as an undergrad, and know a number of impressive scholars who had their undergraduate literary education at UCI. I also know a lot of undergrads who showed up with little exposure to the premises of literary research, and acquired them, in varying degrees, during the course of their education. UC as a whole is definitely facing a tough time, as are many places. Funding is bleak. I know of few major schools that don't have absent eminences grises like Miller---this is, and almost always has been, standard practice, and the benefits of the relationship are, I think, obvious enough. The faculty who are there all the time are a stellar bunch. This is a tough time across the board, and I think indicting any particular institution in this way tends to come from either a personal and not universal set of circumstances, or from a lack of context about what's taking place in academia at large. I hope nobody is ignoring the funding issues Blop mentions; I hope nobody is giving Blop's perspective too much weight.