lotf629

Hey city of ladies, Nice! I have two main interests: medieval women's writing (Hildegard von Bingen, Margery Kempe, Julian of Norwich, various mystics, etc.) and Anglo-Saxon poetry...currently the lyrics, at least for my dissertation, but eventually Beowulf as well. I'm applying as an Anglo-Saxonist. (Usually when I say that I intend to specialize in Old English, people make polite noises and change the subject. Here I should insert a rueful emoticon, but it would probably only make me feel more rueful. ) Best of luck to you, and everybody else!

Hello, city of ladies...from your list and your login, I am going to guess that you are a medievalist interested in Christine de Pizan, yes? I am a medievalist too, though with an earlier set of interests. I know what you mean about the worrying.

I would say that in this case a lot would come down to the person or people who'd be advising you. I totally understand what you mean about Comp Lit and theory. Still, in my experience, it can matter more whether a particular professor is sympathetic to a theoretical approach than it does whether a particular department is. So the first question might be "Can I work with the same people as a French Ph.D. that I was going to work with as a Comp Lit Ph.D.?" Lots of Comp Lit faculty are also foreign language faculty and vice versa. If the answer is yes, and if the people on your dissertation committee could be mostly the same, then I'd consider making the switch for the sake of the funding. You can always take classes in Comp Lit, after all. But if you'd have to find new advisers, and if the people who'd be advising your dissertation would be much less sympathetic to theory, then you might want to stick to your guns. That's my two cents, anyway, not that I'm an expert.

Totally agree.

At some schools, it kinda sorta gets taken in to account, but it's at the very bottom of things considered, and doesn't mean much of anything except to contribute slightly to the big picture. If your other materials are good I am sure it would be overlooked. I think that other schools literally don't even bother to make a note of it. If you have a chance to retake, you might want to, just for the sake of fellowships. But I seriously doubt that it will have much of an impact on your chances.

Harvard's website says they want a 650 or above. Indiana's website says they want a 600 or above. I am not sure, however, whether those numbers are cutoffs or guidelines. I felt like my score went up about 1 point per hour of studying. The websites available (mostly written by prior test-takers) are really helpful, or so I found. I also found it helpful to get a recording of poems (I bought "81 Famous Poems," which is supposedly the audio companion to the Norton), and listen to it constantly. When I actually took the test, I felt that listening to that recording in particular had helped me with several questions. A lot of people tell you that you need to use a huge anthology, which is ideal, but at the same time I think that it's just as important (and much less time consuming) to know the major works cold: say, to have read and re-read major poems and to know major characters and plot synopses of major novels. When I took the test, I felt like often the truly, madly, deeply obscure material could be worked out by process of elimination.

Mmm, well, there's a risk in either direction, I'd say. Glad to know that you all think 650 is too long; I would've risked it. Maybe I'll asked the programs just to be sure.

My list: Columbia Cornell Fordham Harvard Indiana NYU UVA Wisconsin WUSTL And I haven't finished the apps yet. Even for the schools due on 12/15. Yikes. I think that, as Minnesota says, it's all about fit, but the flip side is that getting in is also often about fit. So, orinincadenza, I don't think you should prematurely regret applying to selective schools: if you have really strong reasons for wanting to go to those programs, and if you are a strong match for someone's research interests at those places, I would think you have a shot if your numbers are anywhere in the ballpark.

Where are you planning to apply?

So I realize that it's important to respect the length requests of the school and not write any epics. At the same time, I am confident that there's at least a little flex if the SOP is substantive and concise, right? If a school requests a "succinct statement of approximately 500 words" (Columbia) and my statement is a concise 650, am I okay? What about 700? Opinions, anyone?

Rising_star makes some good points. I would add, though, that having an MA in a different field can be an asset IF you can make a strong case in your SOP for how you are planning to do cross-disciplinary work and IF you have an adequate background in your primary field. It depends a ton on your research interests. Whether a social studies masters would make sense depends a lot on whether your work on 20th c drama will have anything to do with history, sociology, etc. In your case, however, I think the problem that you'd face is that both of your degrees would be ed degrees...neither one is a straight-up degree in English. For one thing, you may not have enough undergrad coursework in English lit to be a strong contender: I don't know. What's more, in general, however unfairly, ed degrees are perceived as less rigorous than arts and sciences degrees. How close is the English ed major to an English major? How rigorous has your program in English been? If you're far short of a major in English lit, you really need to take that into account as you consider applying: you may really need the MA in English. I also agree with rising_star's point that the M.A. in social studies ed may be more than you need if your objective is just to find a classroom enviroment that better fits your pedagogical preferences. At some schools, English classes contain very little rote memorization and almost no "teaching to the test"; on the other hand, at some schools, history and social studies are taught largely through drill...or at least that's been my experience. You might consider looking around for different secondary schools, including private schools or charter schools, before you go back to school for another two years. That's the final thing to consider: if you go back to school for an MA, teach secondary school for, say, three to five years, and then start work on a Ph.D., you'll be in your mid to late 30s by the time you hit the job market as a Ph.D. Not the end of the world, not that unusual either, but on the other hand, if you want a career in academia, you probably want to get the earliest possible start. Another way to think about the question: what does "eventually" mean to you, and what are your eventual goals?

OP, I'd say that there's theory, and then there's theory. In a certain sense, all secondary sources are theoretical. But it's an open question as to whether any graduate student should really be responsible for knowing, in detail, what people like Derrida, Jameson, Saussure, Althusser, Kristeva, etc., think about how texts operate. (I say that as somebody who personally likes to use theory: I don't mean that it's worthless, just that it's certainly not necessary). You certainly don't need to be intimately acquainted with such heady authors to do really good critical work: you can lean on historical sources, on biographical sources, on close reading, etc. Previous poster: I *love* using Butler. I use Butler for *everything*. Just a shout-out

A good point...I transferred as a junior, though, and I was deeply influenced by the program where I spent my fresh/soph years (I did graduate-level work there), so I don't feel like I'll end up being too narrow. I also have very concrete reasons for wanting to stick around. Part of my problem is that I am applying in a very small subspecialty (Old English), so my options for advisors are pretty limited to begin with. There just aren't nearly as many Old English scholars at strong programs as there are, say, Victorianists, or 20th c. people. Moreover, a lot of Old English people are more or less strictly philologists, which I am not. Finally, I do have a Masters, and I know the dissertation I want to write, and it's not exactly like what anyone else is currently doing. So I have essentially tried to create a list of Anglo-Saxonists who are comfortable with a cross-disciplinary approach (by reputation) at schools where the specific approach I'm planning to take seems possible. That's not a huge list. It hasn't left me with a lot of room to eliminate programs on the basis that the faculty aren't currently working on exactly the same problems that interest me. The people I would most like to work with do, for sure, but unfortunately, they are mostly at extremely selective programs. So at the moment it seems necessary to cast a wide net.

Fowler's A History of English Literature was recommended to me by one of my professors as a great introduction to the canon, and I found it really helpful. I also agree with the previous poster's recommendations about the Norton.

Can I add a follow-up question? Just how much research are you guys doing on the faculty at your schools (especially those lower on your list) before you write your SOPs for those programs? Are you just looking them up on school websites and checking out their CVs, stated research interests, etc.? Or are you spending quality time reading recent publications? My top choice is the school where I got my bachelor's, so I know the people I'd be working with pretty well: that's easy. Then, my second choice school has a faculty member whose work I know pretty well and is almost uncannily similar to what I'd like to be doing. W/r/t the other schools, it's an even split: some of the programs have scholars whose work I'm familiar with, others have people whose work I don't know well at all. In the latter cases, I've just done a little googling. But now I'm wondering whether to spend the rest of December a) researching the people I'd be working with in order to demonstrate some serious shared interests and write killer SOPs or working my tail off to try to finish an article in order to list it as "Research Under Review" on my CV. I'm leaning toward option . It's not like there's enough room in the SOP to write a full synopsis of Major Scholar X's recent work, after all...since I only have space to demonstrate broad familiarity with another person's work, I was hoping that I could get away with only *having* broad familiarity with other people's work. But maybe I'm shooting myself in the foot. Thoughts? Finally, I realize that I need to do the research before I choose a program...I was just thinking that I could finish said research after the craziness of admissions season was past.

Hey, no, I don't think you're f*ed at all. I think that there's a lot of variation from school to school as to just how much weight is given to the subject test. Lots of programs understand that the subject score is a shaky measure of your background. It sounds as if you've got everything else in place...great teaching, great writing sample, good test scores in other areas. Sure, it would be better if you had a perfect subject score, but almost everybody has at least one area that *could* be better. As to the twentieth-century thing...well, there are a lot of Ph.D.s in that area, yes, but the flip side is that there's a lot of demand for teachers of twentieth-century lit, so the job market is better on the other side, meaning that at least you don't have to cope with committees wondering whether your research interests will set you up for a job. I'm not saying, "Oh, yeah, for sure, you'll get in everywhere..." Who knows? I'm just saying that you shouldn't despair. I certainly don't think that any program will give more weight to the GRE Lit score than to the writing sample, for instance. If you have a rocking sample and a so-so subject score, well, hey. So you're not a generalist. That seems to be all the Lit test really demonstrates: a survey-level knowledge of the tradition. Lastly...I don't know if this is a good idea or not, I'm just putting it out there...you might add one forthright, unapologetic sentence to your SOP about your need to develop a broader knowledge of the tradition as part of your Ph.D. program. Often, you have a chance to talk about future coursework, right? When you're talking about the classes you want to take, you might add a sentence about how you plan to take seminars in [fill in major gaps in your knowledge]. That's if and only if your programs care a lot about your knowledge of the tradition as a whole. You could write something like, "Throughout my undergraduate and graduate coursework to date, I have taken advantage of many opportunities to specialize, a decision which has led to [x and y research accomplishment]. However, as a Ph.D. candidate, I intend to broaden my knowledge of the tradition as a whole in order to equip myself to teach more effectively and contextualize my own work yadda yadda..." That way, if the GRE score does raise a red flag re: your knowledge of the canon, the committees will know that you are prepared to deal with it.

I think that hermionephd has given really wise advice.

I do wish, though, that I had finished my SOP ahead of time. I had a draft done by late Oct but it was no good, and I'm rewriting it again, and so I was late getting it all my recommenders. I wish that somebody had sat me down and said to me six months ago, "You need to make it a priority to finish a strong version of your SOP by October": I just didn't work it out until it was a bit too late. This, just in case somebody who plans to apply next year is reading this thread. Get a strong, clear version of your SOP done in time to send it to your recommenders early! I didn't, and I think in retrospect that it would have been an excellent use of my time.

I agree that this student is pretty likely to get caught. If you want to be aggressive, however, one thing to do would be to see if you can find out whose names she is actually signing: those people would be the best placed to do something about the situation, and perhaps also the most motivated. You might send a brief letter to those faculty (or to the department, if necessary) saying something like, "Dear Professor So-and-So, "It recently came to my attention that [so-and-So], a former student of yours, has likely forged a letter of recommendation from you as part of her applications to [Program X, Y, and Z]. Since your name is apparently being signed without your consent, I felt obliged to inform you of the situation. "Sincerely, "[Whatever you feel comfortable signing]." Likewise, you could write a similar version of the same letter and send it, anonymously, to the programs to which she's applying: "Dear [Program, Whatever], "It recently came to my attention that [so-and-So] may have forged a letter of recommendation from a former professor as part of her application to your program. Since this professor's name has apparently been signed without [his/her] consent, I felt obliged to inform you of the situation and recommend that you take a moment to confirm the sources of the recommendations in this student's file." You don't need to prove anything, after all, nor do you need to tell them that every letter in the file is fake. You just need to send them enough of a red flag that they pick up the phone...probably not hard to do. If all you do is to recommend that they contact the professors involved, I don't see how you could be accused of a smear campaign. I know that at the undergraduate level, where offices are processing tens of thousands of applications, such tip-offs are routinely pursued; I'd think that the same thing would be true at the grad level.

I've been told by one of the professors currently giving me advice that a fourth letter can be advantageous. I did exactly what you're considering: I got three letters from people in my specialty and a fourth in my secondary field, the one that allowed me to talk credibly about being "interdisciplinary." I'd say, go for the fourth letter. The other option is to call the programs to which you're applying and just ask whether they would consider a 4th LOR if you had it sent: I imagine that they would give you a fairly straightforward answer.

I took a couple of paper tests from the Big Book and was getting 800 V/700-710 Q. Then I started taking Princeton Review's online tests and both scores dropped to 680. I stopped practicing with PR Verbal because I felt like it was a little flaky. When I took the ETS PowerPrep test, I got a 750 V/760 Q. I memorized about 300 words before the real exam. (Before you hate me for studying to raise a 750, know that I am trying to compensate at least partially for some extremely low grades during undergrad.) On the actual test, I got an 800 V/750 Q. Just as an aside, I think that it's really important to use a good vocab list, especially one that is not too hard. A lot of GRE lists (especially long ones) contain really random words that you're not going to see on the test.

I put this question to one of my professors (tenured English faculty), and he told me, basically, that it's perhaps the least important part of the application, but it does make an impression nonetheless. From the standpoint of English admissions alone, it's less important than, say, your writing sample, but you shouldn't disregard it unless you just don't have time to prepare for it. And then there's the matter of funding, which everyone else has already mentioned. The other thing is that the amount of math covered on the Quant section is pretty finite: your score should rise very predictably with practice and a (very) little memorization. So it's worth a little time.