ecritdansleau

For what it's worth, I saw a major improvement in my practice test scores (about 150 points) after taking classes in Renaissance literature. This basically just familiarized me with the Norton Anthology for that period. Many will say studying for the test is arbitrary, and--it kind of is--but if you have a lot of time before the more important application stuff, I do believe that you can raise your score significantly. I have to say, I honestly think the most valuable studying you can do comes from spending time with the Norton Anthologies. This is not to say you should read them from cover to cover. But the more I went though each volume and took practice tests, I felt as if I was suddenly recognizing authors I didn't previously know over and over again, and it was like "big surprise, the Norton spends 70 pages on him/her). To the best of my knowledge, the Norton Anthologies are the most compacted forms of the texts you will see on the test. If someone else knows something better, perhaps they can share. If you are unfamiliar with authors that are heavily represented in the Nortons, it is worth your time and energy to prioritize on those writers. Based on my experience with the test, just doing this (making sure you recognize most everyone in the Norton and can identify some of their major works/style), you can get a decent score of between 630-660 and up. But I should mention one major caveat: a *few* major authors (especially novelists) aren't as prominent in the Norton's because their work is not easy to anthologize. George Eliot, for instance, is a MAJOR author to know for the Subject Test, and you'd probably want to do additional reading outside the Norton (looking through her novels, major quotes, major characters) if you want to be "covered." Henry James is another author for which this non-Norton studying will be really helpful. And, as others have said, The Princeton Review is a must. But at the same time, it will only give you bare basics to do *decent* on the test. It's not going to necessarily earn you a super-high score on its own (remember, percentiles are important, and a huge percentage of test takers will be as familiar with the Princeton Review as you are).

I understand where you're coming from--the idea of possibly waiting three whole months with basically my whole life up in the air is scary. Doing things like normal job hunting *almost* makes one feel like one is in control. It wouldn't hurt to put some extra savings in the bank if that PhD lifestyle ends up becoming a a reality~!

Ugh. One of my recommenders told me when submitting a letter that the deadline showing up on the form she had to fill out was "December 1st" even though the English department states their deadline is December 5th. Now I'm freaking out because one of my letters for that program has still not been submitted (as it needn't be, according the deadline the website tells me?). This is Berkeley, btw. Wtf?! I hope it doesn't block my last recommender from submitting before Monday. Not to mention, the professor who was giving me the heads up about it must think I just absentmindedly wrote down the date wrong. Argh, but it's the website. I'm not wrong! For some reason making *me* look stupid is the last straw, haha. Has anyone else had a program that requires LOR submissions BEFORE the application deadline???? Which was nowhere stated anywhere on the website?? I guess I'll see how this turns out in the next few days.

And we put our interpretive skills to the test : I take it to mean that, if one is sending in additional documents (for instance, GRE scores), they have to be in by jan 1st(?). The application asks for almost all the supporting documents to be uploaded anyway. t might also allow for a letter writer to submit a letter through the mail, perhaps? This still makes it critical that one submits the application itself (even if not all "supporting documents") to the graduate school today (I think). I didn't notice this caveat myself. Even still, I'd rather have my application submitted all in one piece: it makes it less likely that they lose/misplace one part or end up thinking that I didn't submit it. At the same time, I kind of hope deep down that most programs have a similar one month grace period (not so much for the application submission but for test scores and transcripts which are sent in the mail--sometimes it's just hard to predict when things get lost for no reason).

Take note, the "Preview" button is not very intuitively placed. At first I thought "there's no preview button, what is it talking about?" but then I realized it was in the upper right corner of the screen. I think the browser I was using was Chrome, and it worked fine for me yesterday. (Fingers crossed that I won't have issues uploading my SOP and WS)

As always, the SOP name-dropping is something to tread carefully. For the record though, the DGS at my undergrad (an R1 state flagship public university with a decent PhD program) stated that, when he sees faculty names and whatnot on the SOP, he sees it as a sign of the applicant's interest in the department. On the other hand, listing names could really come off as "faking it." I'm wondering though, if it has become so commonplace to name-drop that it has been done infelicitously so as to give it a bad rep? I can't help but think that, in the end, it's not the name-mentioning that matters. It's more about understanding HOW faculty interests coalesce with one's own, and conveying that--it's one thing to know who wrote what article and a bulleted list of a professor' field and interests. It's another thing altogether to have read a faculty member's work extensively and to know the nuances of that professor's ongoing project. Obviously, the latter is going to do much more for an applicant than the former.

I think the two most important factors are an awareness of recent scholarship and an original argument. Whichever paper balances those two things is probably the best choice. In that way, it sounds like #2 would be a good choice, but you might want think about it carefully if it has a "shaky and contestable" point of view.

I am among the "and miles to go before I sleep" group. For this reason, my biggest fear now is typos in my SOP or writing sample. I very much admire the others' ability to send things in before the deadline--I think there's something to say about the confidence that it entails. A professor at my undergrad mentioned how he used to turn in seminar papers around spring break (a month and a half in advance) because he always knew exactly what he wanted to write. Let's just say he turned out very successful. *sigh*

I think the idea of "viable originality" is really important. A professor will be bored if you want to reproduce a book they've already written. I've spent a good deal of time looking over recent dissertations and who their committees/chairs have been, and what I've seen really reflects the notion of "viable originality": asking questions that relate to past scholarship, but often taken in new directions. Most committees and the student are within the same century/field, especially the chair, but sometimes there are surprising disparities in the specialization of the committee readers and student, and yet the connection between their work is still obvious. Take for instance, Anahid Nersessian--a new assistant prof at Columbia--who specializes in 18th century British literature but one of her committee members is Lauren Berlant, who focuses on American culture in the 19th and 20th century. The connection between their work is obvious though, when you notice that Nersessian relates politics and affect (precisely what Berlant does, just in a different time period.)

This seems kind of strange, considering that Harvard's website states that 700 on the verbal is considered a high score. What programs does your professor think a 720 verbal might keep you out of?

This is so unfortunate--I think contacting the department is a smart idea. If they do not okay the submission of a late rec, my advice would be to get your professor a decent version of the paper ASAP, apologize for the inconvenience of the timing, and say that if he cannot submit the Dec 8th recommendation that you will understand, but that you would be highly appreciative if he ends up being able to do so. If nothing else, just submit everything else in the application that is within your power. It seems as if departments vary on how they handle things like this (some are more strict), so don't throw in the towel just because he can't write the recommendation. Again, it might really help to talk to someone in the department (perhaps if there is a secretary who handles the graduate application submissions) to gauge flexibility in this area.

This is a great question. On the one hand, a professor once advised me away from making this sort of reference in paper because sometimes you don't know how political allegiances of the readers may be turned off by what you say. I also recall reading in guidelines for a peer-reviewed journal that one should avoid references to contemporary events, as they unnecessarily "date" one's scholarship. On the other hand, it is not uncommon for scholars to conclude a monograph, or even open one up, with discussions of how their work is relevant to current events. In fact, it seems that some of the most established scholars I can think of are very much invested in this line of thinking. But perhaps the key word there is "established"--they don't run the same risks that you and I might run when we decide to talk about certain politically-charged topics. Personally, I think it can be a great way to showcase one's original thoughts on a topic--but if one is to figure it into an SOP (which I'm not quite sure I would), I would tread very, very carefully to not align yourself on one side of the controversy so much as emphasize the importance of continuing dialogue about such matters.

If they don't require it, I see no reason as to why you would be obligated to fill that part of the application out. Unless both A.)they recommend (but don't require) you take the subject test AND B.) you have an extremely high score, I wouldn't worry about it. In fact, if a department doesn't require it, that's one indicator that they don't perceive the test to be very useful, in which case they might not even care if you did have a high score. Although I haven't yet gotten my score back for the Nov test, I don't think it's likely that I'll be filling in that information for the departments that don't require it.

Bleh--this topic brought me to realize, upon doing a google search of myself, that what comes up is another person with my name (not a particularly common one) and so all that comes up is her twitter and facebook. I don't use twitter, and I have my facebook privacy set up to not show up in google. It's kind of annoying. Should I worry? Am I thinking about this too much?

Grain of salt: I really have no credibility on this topic, considering I am now applying for the first time myself! But upon reading your post, it seems as if you really researched your schools and applied widely the first time, but on the latest attempt (when your application was presumably much more competitive qualitatively), you didn't apply to as many programs...I'm not sure of your situation, but if one is really specific about geographic location, this can make it immensely more difficult to apply. Many applicants apply to the same clusters of locations, so applying to programs spread out across the country can put you in different applicant pools (and increase the likelihood that you might be--forgive my metaphor!--the relatively big fish in the pool rather than a smaller fish in a big pool). Honestly, I wouldn't even count your third try as such because applying to one program could almost be considered statistically irrelevant. You shouldn't sweat that one. In this way, this round of apps is the first one in which you can really make something of the advice from the second time around--like the bit about syntax/sentences. I could be wrong, but this sounds like the kind of criticism that could really be the kiss of death because "odd" or clunky writing obscures your own research products (and, how can a program expect you to teach writing if you haven't established your own excellence in that skill?)--luckily for you, though, it's definitely something you could actually fix (which you've probably already implemented in your writing sample for this round).

It is really ridiculous. I find the whole system of score reporting so extremely counter-intuitive. The GRE markets itself as "take the gre now, even if you might not apply to graduate school for a couple of years" and yet, they expect you to use up your four score reports the same year as you take the test: there's something awry about this logic! For the test fee alone, the test taker as consumer should have the option to enter in the four departments to send out the included score reports when one pleases/decides. Not to mention, departments change requirements at the last minute (like, cough, NYU this year with the subject test--anyone who registered for the Oct 15th subject test would already have had to have put NYU on the score report listing). But ultimately, the score reporting is almost automatically set up so that you'll have to pay extra. If I were able to decide what score reports to send to which departments NOW instead of merely the moments when I took the GRE general and subject, I wouldn't have to order additional score reports. It's a great system for ETS. Why English departments continue to condone it I'm not entirely certain.

Different tests have different raw scores which pertain to different scaled scores. For instance, one of the old subject test exams I had to practice with had a raw score of 185-189 for a scaled score of 700, 97th percentile. I have another old test for which raw scores of 190-193 convert to a scaled score of 700, 97th percentile. I have another one that is 188-191 for a 700 (95th prcentile). So, they're pretty close, but there is slight variation.

Although CUNY is one of my top schools, I'm concerned about the funding they offer. For the $125 app fee, I'm wondering if I should use that money elsewhere, i.e. drop the application to CUNY and apply to another department (maybe even two) that is less evasive about money matters. I was looking at their website, and I'm trying to figure out how it is possible that someone could even live off of the 18,000 stipend in NYC (and apparently this is the best case scenario)--But, not all admitted students get the ECF stipend, so they presumably have to live on even less. However, the website doesn't indicate the specific details of of how much money one gets from only teaching without an ECF. And the website repeatedly states that they offer an "in-state tuition waiver": I'm not a resident of NY, so what exactly does that mean for me? My understanding is that out-of-state tuition is nearly double in-state tuition, so that's practically a deal-breaker for me. It just seems impossible, even in the best case scenario.

I took the test today (as a lucky last minute standby) because my Oct 15th experience was so awful (although I still haven't gotten my score back), and I actually do think the test today was, generally, much better. Of course, it's pretty subjective since the Oct 15th test will live in my memory eternally as an awful, awful nightmare. The one today was closer to the format in the practice tests. There were actually a few sections of quick identifications through quotes and what not which were almost entirely absent form the October test. I imagine that the raw scores though are averaged out for harder tests, but honestly, the psychological cruelty (as in, slightly different format, requiring different timing strategizing) of the Oct 15th completely threw me off. It's funny, because I spent the last month thinking "I'm ready for the whole test to be reading comp" but then it wasn't, as much. At least today I felt like, okay, I did my best.

I think anything over 600 puts one in a respectable range. I have to wonder about any adcoms more nitpicky than that--the test is just too arbitrary for one to make a big deal out of slight differences in score ranges. Actually, out of curiousity, what are the highest expectations for subject test scores listed on department websites? The only one I was certain about was Berkeley, which says successful applicants "usually" have 650 or higher, and Harvard, which says a "high score (650)" is a positive addition to one's application.

Cornell might be one place to look at; I think they do offer a joint program in creative writing and the literature phd.

I've thought about this same question. Although I'm not an expert on this career trajectory (and I'd love to hear the experiences of someone who is actually pursuing it), I imagine--in agreement with the above poster--that it's all about getting in contact with the schools that might hire you, as well as networking at international conferences. It's probably a very real possibility if one takes steps like that early on.

To the OP: It's kind of funny; I had a comparable melt-down last week in which I really began to question why certain things in literary studies are the way that they are and just how subjective so much of it seems. I actually think it's healthy to question these kinds of things. I don't agree though, that we can compare literary studies and science. Case in point:Freshman Term Paper Discovers Something Completely New About Silas Marner (When I first saw this years ago I immediately printed it out and hung it up on my refrigerator.) It's hilarious to parody the humanities AS a scientific enterprise in which knowledge "accretes" because the idea is so absurd. I think though, as one becomes increasingly invested in this process with a realistic self-awareness, one knows that there are just not enough spaces for everyone. And rants like those above perhaps manifest the impulse to harden ourselves a bit, to "what is so great about academia?!?!" because we are fearfully realizing that academia may reject us. But that's just an abstraction, anyway. We apply because it's worth a shot, right? And anyone who has dotted all the i's and crossed their t's in order to be a competitive applicant (good writing skills, strong transcript, etc) will probably find that--even if this isn't the path for them *of course I cross my fingers and speak in the third person*--there are skills we've gained along the way that can take us far in other professions. Is the grass always greener on the other side, or am I correct in having the sense that--should one choose to pursue an alternate career (as a plan b from the English PhD), the other professional degrees one can apply for are considerably less competitive than what an English phd applicant has to deal with? Perhaps not at the ivies, but there are quite simply more jobs for lawyers, librarians, and high school English teachers than there could ever be spaces for R1 research professors in English literature. There really is an unfortunately bottle-neck. *sigh* I should clarify that I know none of these "other" jobs (lawyers, teachers,) are walks in the park/or "easy" to obtain (especially in this economy); but there are more of them, and thus they are considerably more realistic, practical, and perhaps more geographically liberating (as in, if you want to live in an urban area, you probably can--something a serious academic might have to give up if s/he only gets a research job offer in a more remote area.) NB: This paragraph was an attempt at optimism.

It really is--perhaps because it makes you question so many things you have done, are doing, and may or may not be able to do in the future based on the first two. I'm trying to keep a detached/unemotional head about things, but it's crazy how much my life is up in the air just as a result of this process, and it's impossible to not feel invested in it. And to imagine--it's not even February yet!

I guess in a purely strategic sense, I can imagine this, but really, to ask "why doesn't everyone just pretend..." is somehow off-putting. I imagine, though, he has had firsthand experiences of why one might consider this. But am I a simpleton to think that..people don't do this because it's extremely backwards, dishonest, impractical, and inefficient? It's not as if people are trying to get into English PhD programs for the career prospects. Ultimately, the more one thinks of things with a mindset solely focused on "what's attractive to admissions committees," the more one restricts their thinking in ways that prevent them from creatively exploring the research niches that might be worthwhile (and perhaps, in effect, actually attractive to admissions committees). This is just my opinion. And perhaps I am also unaware and naive of the extent to which choice of field bars many applicants from being admitted. Perhaps it's an early indicator of the difficulties and hoop-jumping of the job market. Of course, for someone at a stage in which they are still open to different historical fields (a sophomore, or non former English major MA), the fact of glutted fields might be something to consider along with everything else that guides one's research path. And yet, I find the idea of someone intentionally misrepresenting him/herself a bit loathsome (If you're going to give the application a go in another field, you might as well imagine yourself immersing in it fully). Then again, I also question the efficiency of an adcom's choosing students based on field when so many change anyway (without having planned to do so). I can understand a department not wanting to have an entering class of say, eight modernists out of ten entering students, but it just seems to me like two or three loose categories (i.e. half entering students early modern literature and earlier, the other half18th century and later) might be useful. I guess it's the desire of wanting to have different professors feel like different grad students will definitely be coming to them--but it's weird to think how that's backfiring if students are actually applying-in-field-A-to-study-field-B-after-admission with success.