lotf629

GoodGuy, check out the Chronicle of Higher Education fora on this topic: http://chronicle.com/forums/ and then search "American Studies." See especially this thread: http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php/t ... 235.0.html

I think Glasses' post was spot-on. Many English Ph.D. programs will take only 1-2 students (if that) per year, per subfield; as a result, professors on the committee are looking not only for qualified candidates but for workplace subordinates and junior colleagues. That's why so many people on these boards emphasize "fit," and why many people are accepted at superselective schools but rejected by moderately selective schools. That said, I think Glasses' 2% rate is typical of the most selective programs. I know that Columbia took 20 out of 700+ this year, and I know that Harvard typically takes 16-18 out of 400+...but there again, those numbers are misleading, because they make Harvard look less selective than Columbia, which is not the case.

My two cents: if you're mostly a theorist/pomo/Comp Lit person, it's Columbia for you. If you're a historicist, or you're committed to the canon in a traditional sense (i.e., you're old school English lit in your approach to the discipline), it's Oxbridge. IMO, the biggest point of an MA like these is the faculty interaction: you get outstanding people to tell you where your own work falls short of outstanding, which gives you a chance to fix it up before you apply for PhDs, and you also get a chance at strong, specific letters from famous people. Ultimately, I'd go where you see the best faculty matches (see first paragraph). My impression is that going from a PhD program to a TT position, you would definitely want a U.S. graduate degree, but going from the MA to the PhD, there's no substantial downside to coming from a British program (in terms of fit, prestige, etc.) The thing about the Oxbridge MA (and here I'm basically seconding Phedre's post) is that it's likely to be a hell of a lot less structured. From an academic standpoint, then, it's going to be what you make of it, whereas Columbia's program is likely to offer more guidance.

Phedre, I had a similar problem as a queer theorist at a forcefully (and sometimes, it seemed, forcibly) New Historicist place. I suggest you think of having one foot in queer theory and one foot in another methodology/subfield (whichever makes the most sense/is the most employable/etc. for your era). It's very doable, for instance, to synthesize queer theory and historicism: the trick is that you almost have to work twice as hard as everyone else, because your work has to contribute to both discussions. I talked about this a little bit on the Judith Butler thread. If you can get your advisor to stop seeing his approach and your approach as exclusive, you may be able to have your cake and eat it too. If you want to PM me I would love to talk more about ways to do queer theory/gender theory and also find jobs because it's my problem too. As for the grad students, my two cents would be as follows: if they have basically the same ambitions you do (they want an R1 placement, you want an R1 placement; they want a SLAC placement, you want a SLAC placement; whatever), you should listen to them very carefully; if they have different ambitions, you should still listen to them, but less carefully. You should also remember that grad school is sometimes about making extreme sacrifices in order to set yourself up for future success: listen hard to find out whether they're telling you "Don't work with that guy because he'll make your next four to six years miserable" or "Don't work with that guy because his reputation is toxic in some areas of the academy." If it's A and not B, well, you have to decide whether it's worth the price.

A quirky question for anyone in the Columbia area: Around Boston/Cambridge, there are a number of different types of university involvement or volunteer work that can get you on a cheap or free meal plan. It looks like for my first year at Columbia I'll be living in a dorm-style single, and as a result I'm looking for the cheapest and most convenient possible meal plan in the area. I'm wondering if there are any opportunities for advising at Barnard, working with undergrads, staffing nonprofits, etc., that would save me from eating out six nights a week but also save me from the hassle of cooking meals in a toaster oven. Any resourceful individuals out there with good ideas?

Rarely are unfunded MAs worth it...Could you apply to funded MAs for next year?

Very best of luck, OP. Your Didion essay, as well as some of the other posts on this thread, made me think of J.K. Rowling's Harvard commencement speech: definitely worth a read/listen if you haven't already. http://harvardmagazine.com/commencement ... magination

Yeah, I guess the Subject test thing depends on where you want to go. You said something about "tippy-top" programs in your post, so I was thinking Harvard/Yale/etc. when I gave my advice. But I agree with booksareneat that at most places the 680 is fine, and I tend to overemphasize standardized tests myself, so you should probably take me with a grain of salt.

Here's the thread: viewtopic.php?f=56&t=16167&p=77812&hilit=MLA#p77812 I would do whatever you can to get some good advice from TT people. Two things come to mind: 1) Is there an R1 near you where you could audit a course or otherwise make some connections? Auditing (and doing the work well, of course) can be a great way to gain a contact because it allows you to begin getting to know a professor without requiring him/her to make a commitment to you. 2) My experience was that, when I contacted potential advisors, they were often willing to give me general counsel other than the obvious "you should apply to work with me and come to our school." If there's any way you can get some face time with your potential advisors to ask them about *their* program, you may find that they are willing to give you broader advice, too. 3) Is there any conference you could attend? I understand the problem of geographic limitations, and I'm not suggesting you spend a million dollars flying all over the country. At the same time, I think you should try to be creative and resourceful about making connections: do as much as you can from where you are to get face time with TT people. Even just a little bit could help. As for the GRE Literature test, hmm, I dunno. If you have to pick between time spent on your sample and time spent on the GRE Lit, you should work on your sample, no question, and forget the test. However, if you have time to do both, I think you should retake. Berkeley says "those admitted score, on average, 650 (88%) or higher": I don't know what the hell "an average of 650 or higher" means , since I think an average is by definition not a range, but my guess is that 650 is somewhat lower than the actual numerical mean. My impression is that while a 680 is not going to keep you out, a slightly higher score might help you a little bit at some programs. It's a very small thing when compared to the rest of your application, but then again, you're competing with 30-40 other people for every spot, so you should do every little thing you can. See if you have the time for it. Finally, there was another related thread with some useful advice (KFed2020's comments come to mind): viewtopic.php?f=56&t=16246&p=76866&hilit=harvard#p76866. You might want to check it out.

First of all, that essay rocks, and I'm so grateful you shared it! Second of all, it basically sounds to me as if you may have been sunk by your SOP and sample, which may not have been ready for prime time, and that you might be able to do much better when you reapply. Here I'm summarizing Engguy. As for expanding your search, I think a lot depends on whether you see yourself as a teacher who researches or a researcher who teaches. If you have serious research ambitions, I think that you were wise to aim for top-25 schools. On the other hand, Engguy rightly points out that it's dumb to restrict yourself to these programs out of a misguided sense of prestige. Fit is enormously important, yes. Engguy, I gotta disagree , strongly, not necessarily in your case but in the OP's. IMO, the best time--and maybe the only good time--to worry about whether you'll be able to get a job is *before* you commit six years of your life to a program. I also got in to some schools at which I contacted no-one ahead of time (several of which were in the top 25). I will say, however, that it probably helps *a lot* to make contact with people ahead of time. The best offer I got (the one I took) was at a place where I had had both coffee and lunch with my potential advisor. I have a suspicion, though it could be false, that at least one of my letters to that program was somewhat tailored to it...I had one professor in particular who felt that I would be a good fit for that school in particular, and I have a feeling he said so in his letter. So you might add that to the mix (trying to get some tailored recs, at least for your top choices). Mmm, yeah. My sample was pretty steeped in the discourse: it had a three-page bibliography. This, I would certainly fix. It will take you a long time (longer than you expect) but is very very possible. Also, even if you are mostly a close reader, you want to show some awareness of *other people's* close readings: you can do close reading and engage in the discourse simultaneously. I'd say: start by turning your writing sample into a research paper. Do you know how to do good research? There's a thread about it somewhere. Yes yes yes. Engguy is right again. And also, OP, yes to all your questions. You are quite specific about what you want to study. You don't list scholars, but you work them in to the SOP. Better still is to cite them in your writing sample (in a way that actually makes good scholarly sense, not in a sucking up way). I knew what dissertation I wanted to write, and I wrote my SOP about it. On the other hand, I think most people are far less specific than that...just to say that it might be hard to be too specific. I agree with Engguy: your AW score matters not at all unless it's like a 2. Some programs might prefer a slightly higher GRE Lit score. Northwestern, I believe, wants 700+ across the board. If you're reapplying and you still have your eyes on top programs, I'd aim for a 720-730. You should be able to find those 50 additional points; there are threads about it. PM me if you want; I invested way too much time and energy on that test, which was dumb, but I can at least tell you how to ace it. Also, don't make the mistake of putting too much faith in high GREs . I thought that mine (800V/750M/770Lit) would be a help, and I am confident now that they were no more helpful than they would have been if they were merely good enough. Try to hit the threshold for your goal schools and be done with it. Good luck!

Nope. If you *do* have them, they will help, but if you *don't* have them, it probably won't hurt (whereas not having them *would* hurt you if you were a medievalist). If you have a strong research background in medieval stuff but you like more recent British stuff, I strongly suggest you think (AND WRITE) about the many links between the two: Victorian medievalism comes to mind, though I know little about it myself. I ran into several people this application season who had gotten into top programs by studying the influence of medieval lit on much later periods (such as Victorian lit, as I mentioned, or the poetry of World War I). Talk to the people on your campus about a research project that would allow you to tie the two together, perhaps, and see if you can come up with a writing sample that focuses on the era you're most interested in but shows off your knowledge of earlier eras. And if you do have any kind of language background at all, try to pull it in a little.

Ahhh, the SSAT. (Those of you have been spared this monstrosity, it's like the SAT, except for prep schools.) An excerpt from "The Worst Test In The World" at http://www.numbertwopencil.net/pdfs/ssat.pdf: "If there's any silver lining to this poor, wretched, pathetic excuse for a standardized test, it is that it disabuses those of us who tend to see things through the lens of class warfare of the notion that the privileged are necessarily provided with a better level of service than everybody else. In this case, they actually seem to have it worse. The SAT, for all the cogent arguments that can be raised against it, has for the last decade maintained a baseline level of competency that this test doesn't even graze. I have never seen the Regents exams that New York students have to take to get into the most exclusive public schools, but I have heard decent things about them, and I certainly can't imagine they're anywhere near as bad as this. I'm not sure what could be. Perhaps, somewhere in deepest darkest Texas, there is a Bush-mandated "High-Stakes Exam" on which every essay question ends with "What Would Jesus Do?" and 2+2 is said to equal 'many'. But, until one of you produces such a document for me

Oh, yeah, hey, MonoE is totally right. I overlooked the fact that you are (presumably?) a medievalist. If you are a medievalist, languages are very important. Like MonoE, I applied this year as a medievalist this year and did decently well, and I think my languages (several years each of Latin, OE, MidE, and French) helped quite a bit. MonoE, I'd say that if the OP is starting from scratch, the first things to consider picking up might be Middle English and Latin, right? OP, have you done Latin? Latin is not totally necessary especially if you have another strong classical language, but I think it's one of the first things committees look at, so you might start there. Old English is wonderful (I'm an Anglo-Saxonist myself), but not all schools offer it, and it tends to be quite time-consuming. It's the kind of thing one can do as a grad student if necessary. Maybe think in terms of taking summer Latin courses, depending on where your Latin is right now? Decent Latin + historical background + medieval research interests + proven medieval research ability might be an interesting combination when you apply.

Another thing you could (and maybe should) do is to email Dartmouth's MA program and ask if they keep records of Ph.D. placements. If 80% of their grads are going to top-10 schools, that's one thing. If Tugboat Captain's friend was an exception to the rule, that's another thing. It would help you a lot to have more information.

I agree with the above posters, especially given that the horrible competitiveness of admissions is supposed to get worse before it gets better.

You'd probably get better advice if you gave us more specifics about your MA. Ordinarily, I would caution anybody about turning down a Ph.D. offer for an MA of any kind. However, I do agree with you that a school ranked in the 40s may not have the best job placement record ever. I'd start by ask the Ph.D. program about their job placements, and I'd also look into the possibility that they are strongly ranked in a particular subfield, or that they have a few nationally known people with whom you could work. Given that the MA has no placement record whatever, I also think you might be overconfident about your own placement chances coming out of it: ?? I'd also suggest...and I mean this sincerely, in the nicest possible way, as someone who is trying to talk herself into the same paradigm shift...that instead of simply accepting your need for external validation, you see it as a very expensive bad habit, and work to overcome it. Academia is too uncertain a job track to sustain a lifelong commitment to high-status positions: even most people who come out of schools ranked number one immediately start working at vastly less prestigious universities, so sooner or later, you're almost certain to end up spending some serious time in Nowheresville. If you want a career in research and you're concerned about getting an R1 placement eventually, that's another thing altogether.

1) Can you take a grad seminar this fall? That could help you put together a good writing sample. 2) Make sure that you find out who, specifically, you want to work with and get in touch with them ahead of time. 3) Think about how you will pull together all of the pieces of your application to tell a *single, unified* story...so that the SOP reinforces the writing sample, which is in turn reinforced by the letters, etc. 4) Possibly use your history major to help differentiate yourself... 5) Make sure that you give your letter writers enough information to write well-informed letters (i.e., their past comments on your papers, your SOP, etc.), and see if you can get them to agree to customize your letters for your top-choice schools. Give them your customized SOPs for those schools ahead of time, and tell them exactly who you plan to work with at those schools. This means giving them plenty, plenty, plenty of notice.

I've just reread your post and I want to say again that nothing in your post makes me confident that he dislikes you. Some people are just more distant toward their advisees than others. One of the cardinal rules of grad school, I think, is to take personally as little as possible.

Let me also just say that maybe your advisor doesn't hate you at all. Some people are just difficult. I've had relationships with teachers whom I thought really disliked me that just turned out to be distracted by personal circumstances, etc. I agree with everyone else on this board that you shouldn't be too worried about the personal side of this relationship, but I also think that you should just assume that the problem isn't with you. Chances are very good that this person has left others feeling left out in the cold as well, and that he would be startled to know how his treatment of you is being perceived. Just assume that he likes you fine but is essentially treating you in a professional but distracted manner, and get through it as best you can.

Think about tutoring standardized tests or working with kids on college essays. Your hourly rate can be fantastic.

Me too. Not first-generation (mom has a college degree; dad only has a high school degree) but low-income. Failed out of Ivy league school while working three part-time jobs (kudos to those who stayed above water). Two years ago, while I was in my MA, my dad was homeless...living in his truck. I was trying to figure out how to fly home, how to pull together money to pay an apartment deposit for him if necessary, etc., while everyone around me was only worried about language requirements. Currently I'm chipping in about $800 a month to various family stuff, but like a previous poster, I'm going back to school and I'm just not going to be able to do it anymore, and I feel guilty as hell sometimes. And scared. Doing all the Ph.D. meet-and-greets, I kept running in to 22-year-olds--charming, intelligent people--who made me feel really, really lonely. I'm entering a Ph.D. program at 29 because it took me so long to make it work financially: five years of pulling myself together, funding an MA to make up for my poor grades in undergrad, then getting ready for a Ph.D., chipping in for my family's well-being. I know I want to be in a Ph.D. program, and it's taken me a long time to get ready for one. I'm glad to have found this thread...it reminds me how many of us are in the same boat.

I was about to use the phrase "don't ask, don't tell" myself. I'm kind of in your position. I'm an SAT tutor and college counselor rather than a bartender, but the tradeoff is similar: high hourly rate means about $750 for one day of work. I did this all through my MA. Plus, I have family obligations that most people don't (my parents are completely broke, and I often have to kick back money to them instead of the other way around). So I've spent some time looking into this one. I think that if you were responsible about your research and kept your job to yourself, at most departments, nobody would care. On the other hand, somebody pointed out to me that being broke is not that bad if it means you can focus totally on your research. At this point, I'm seriously considering *not* working even though I fully expect I could, just because I'm not sure that even really good money would be worth it to me any more. Maybe, maybe not. I'm really looking forward to just being a student, however: being responsible for nothing but my scholarship.

booksareneat, I believe that was my favorite gradcafe post of all time.

Here are my thoughts on Columbia. I don't go there but have been researching, asking, visiting, etc. I'd loooooove to hear from anybody with more direct experience. Columbia pitches itself as possessing a kind of enlightened eclecticism: the faculty represent an unusually broad range of methodologies and approaches, and they sell the program as beneficial to students hoping to do something different or novel. The English side of the department seems colored or inflected by its partnership with Comp Lit. The potential disadvantage here is that the program is more loosely organized than many: there is no generals exam per se, for instance, and the course requirements are relatively loose. At the same time, there doesn't seem to be too much risk of falling through the cracks at the moment because the key players seem to be committed and attentive teachers. Maybe it's the kind of program held together more by the personal commitment and energy of the people involved than by uniform institutional policy? There does seem to be a strong institutional commitment to teaching the craft of writing (both at the undergrad and grad level), a major plus IMO. Cultural studies is as much of a shared interest among the faculty as any, or so I've been told. The program is somewhat less strong in the area of traditionally literary close reading: perhaps not a great place for people interested primarily in traditional poetics, for instance. The stipend is good and the subsidized housing helps, but making it as a graduate student in NYC isn't easy. One disadvantage: the teaching load is relatively heavy. It also seems to me the kind of place that allows for students to treat school as a consuming but essentially limited day job, one that requires long hours but allows you to do other things. A number of students (and some faculty) are creative writers, for instance. It seems to be the kind of place that would allow for an outside interest, especially if such an interest dovetailed in some way with one's academic pursuits. I'm interested to hear whether I'm wrong or right about all this from anyone who has more insight/experience than I. Other impressions?

I'm 'not sure this is the best place for this thread but it was the closest fit I could find. I'm in a kind of a weird situation: I'm considering cosigning for a consolidation loan that my dad is going to take out (instead of the other way around). I've heard that, in the current economic climate, you need a better-than-usual credit score to consolidate. Does anybody have any experience with qualifying for consolidation loans recently? Any insight (or even speculation) about what kind of a credit score you need?