JonathanEdwards

Eigentuemer, That is a ludicrous sum of money. I've spoken at two major international conferences, and reading of others I think the highest fee I've seen in my field (Classics) was c. $120. Two this autumn are waiving fees and providing accommodation for speakers to boot, so I'm thinking this is a high-powered *for-profit* enterprise you should be very wary of. Even though we're in different fields, I'm sure you can find another and better opportunity to display your research skills. Best of luck, W.

I was wondering if PhD applicants for 2012-13 would mind answering a poll for the benefit of next year’s applicants? The prospect of pursuing a PhD in Classics with a poor economy and the humanities under attack is pretty daunting. When people start the process for the next admission cycle, it would be nice if they could see a snapshot of what the results really look like. The PhD application thread quickly expanded to an unreadable point as people updated their results (particularly confusing when people got offers from multiple universities). Also, please share some anecdotal evidence in your *single* post: 1) if you got feedback, was there anything in particular that made the difference to your getting in? 2) what level of funding, if any, came with the offer you accepted? 3) for those of you who accepted placement in a program that was not your first choice, was it your so-called ‘safety’ program? My apologies for starting this thread while a few people haven’t heard yet. I waited too long to ask a similar question last year, and everyone departed to begin packing for their move to their new university, so there was little response. At any rate, congratulations to those of who who made it this year, and for those who didn't, don't give up! W.

AP, I doubt name cachet matters as much as some people suppose. I would encourage you to think about this not as a comparison between two universities, or even two programs, but between two research supervisors. To get into a competitive PhD program, you will need a superior MA thesis and strong recommendations from specialists in your area. Neither of these are likely to emerge if the program does not have a scholar well fitted to supervise your particular research interests (and take an interest in you). I hope this helps, and wish you the best of luck on your journey! W.

Do not assume that non-EU students never get funding. I wish you the best of luck. W.

There’s no real reason why they can’t arrange for your coursework to benefit your research interests. Protocol will vary from university to university, but if you can make a good case to your supervisor I shouldn’t worry overmuch about it. Bureaucratic rules may exist and look forbidding, but in my experience, that’s because universities have to have rules in place. What senior faculty (i.e. the tenured people who would be supervising you) want, senior faculty generally get. If you want a formalized arrangement, I’d suggest approaching your primary supervisor in Classics about arranging for joint supervision with the faculty member in Linguistics.

Congratulations! A long wait, but a program worth waiting for. Do you have to/want to accept immediately, or will you hold out and see what Michgan offers?

ERIH ranks as International 1, International 2, and National, based on committee's evaluation of the importance of the work coming out of those journals. There seems to be consensus about the 'NAT' label, but the furor between 'INT1' and 'INT2' rankings will probablly never end. While I think the RAE (Research Assessment Exercise) in the United Kingdom is commendably trying to provide a level playing field, there's a certain amount of subjectivity that can't be removed from these evaluations. The good thing is that they aren't static: some journals were able to move up in the rankings between ERIH 2007 and 2011. Too many acronyms... must follow up with coffee...

There’s a very specific ranking by discipline done by the European Reference Index for the Humanities. While it’s designed for EU nations to rank their own academic contributions, they list American journals. http://www.esf.org/research-areas/humanities/erih-european-reference-index-for-the-humanities.html W.

I would say that more is not always better, and suggest that you carefully take stock of what you’ll get out of the conference. While hiring panels will discount anything that looks like resume padding, you did say this is a major national conference. Some would go further. There was a document out recently with advice from a panel of early-career academics advising postgrads not to bother with postgrad conferences/poster presentations, conferences without published proceedings. That advice is rather stark, but in most humanities disciplines, it is primarily the publications that people take your measure by. Take that for what it’s worth – I’m attending a (non-published) national conference myself in April, but have very specific reasons for doing so. Best of luck in your program! W.

It’s good to understand that the issues occupying Medieval theologians often began to be discussed in the Patristic period. I’d suggest reading not only vol. 3 (Medieval church) of Pelikan’s The Christian Tradition, but vol. 1 (Patristic) as well. If tracing that development seems worthwhile to you, likewise consider Kelly’s Early Christian Doctrines and Early Christian Creeds, as well as Dix’s Shape of the Liturgy. The advice to read plenty of Augustine is good, although if your studies in this period run more towards the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire than Europe, you may want to substitute the Cappadocian Fathers. Best wishes on your future program.

With your interests, can I ask why you’re not considering staying at Leeds for your master’s degree? They’re a leading university for medieval studies, and host the International Medieval Congress every year. Your study abroad time may yield some great contacts.

You’re very welcome, SM. Certainly the competition for tenured teaching positions in the humanities is fierce, but I think that picture is a little clouded by the large number of people who have been awarded a PhD, but not made themselves a competitive applicant in the process (as well as those who have eliminated themselves by attending non-competitive programs, but that’s another thread altogether). Eight months on towards submission, I feel even more strongly that this aspect need to be better communicated to beginning students by their departments. I’ve tried to put this a little differently to new students this year, with more success. Back in the day when I participated in strategic planning we could readily identify a difference between ‘process thinking’ and ‘outcome-based thinking’. If one thinks in terms of checking off all the boxes, that will come to pass, but without really addressing the big question ‘what are we trying to do here?’ It is entirely too easy to wind up your PhD having assumed that the goal was to Phinish the process, when really the goal was to use that process to craft you into a scholar, as demonstrated by your putting forward new knowledge. Desired outcome: superior scholarship Outcome measurements: ***knowledge-advancing dissertation***, peer-reviewed journal articles, conference papers published as peer-reviewed proceedings. Process outputs (not to be confused with above): completed coursework, high grades on coursework, courses taught on as a T.A., conferences attended, conference papers delivered, conference posters made, books reviewed, completed comprehensive exam, high grades on comprehensive exam, completed dissertation. Best wishes, W.

I took a Th.M. from GCTS’ South Hamilton (main) campus, and was impressed with the caliber of both students and faculty. I’ll chime in with something I posted here last year. If you’re interested in GCTS, just be aware that the main campus and the branch campus are apples and oranges. The South Hamilton (main) campus has an international student population, primarily attending full-time, many of whom are graduates of extremely competitive institutions. The downtown Boston campus is an outreach effort to a primarily part-time student population underserved by decent theological education. Between graduating and moving to the (unnamed) university where I’m finishing my PhD, I audited a course at GCTS - downtown Boston because I was interested in the topic and really liked the professor. The professor was the same, the material was excellent, but the caliber of students was generally so different that it changed the overall experience. My degree included a mix of coursework from GCTS, BC, and Harvard, and I’d say that the professors and students were roughly equal quality. Both BC and Harvard shined, though, in offering courses with discussion seminars, while GCTS was mostly 20-30 student classroom lectures.

Hi mch, Regarding the GPA issue, it can't hurt to talk to admissions counselors at some schools and test their flexibility. As long as you can articulate why your earlier performance wasn’t representative, don’t expect funding, and are willing to do a semester or two on academic probation status, you may be able to gain admission and show what you're capable of in a first master's degree.

Thanks, Myshkin. It’s always nice to hear about a program from someone with actual experience. Conference gossip likely sounds like a worthwhile source to someone desperate for information about a field, but it’s usually both biased and unhelpful. Having heard someone with zero firsthand contact represent one of my alma maters in a similarly unrecognizable fashion, I’m incurably wary of inflammatory statements from people who are ‘in the know’ because they attended last year's A.P.A. or C.A. conference. Bottom line for new readers: The most productive way to differentiate between excellent programs (like all those mentioned in this thread) is personal, i.e. fit between you and your potential research supervisor, availability of the resources you need, etc.