truckbasket

Hermia, both of those topics sound strong -- perhaps just determine which one presents the best argument or demonstrates your ability to articulate well. bdon19, I wouldn't stress too much about the trendiness of your method (unless tomorrow's theory is your intended area -- digital humanities for example), but perhaps try to outline existing discussions about your topic in the lit review (that is, if a discussion exists) by hitting up JSTOR. If you're carving out a place for your ideas to sit, then it's always wise to comment on what a couple of writers have already said -- either to build upon their ideas or to politely de-pants them. The committee will be looking to gauge your ability and potential more than how up to speed you are.

But as you do trauma studies, having some knowledge of current conversations in Affect Theory would be helpful for you as that's a relatively booming area right now.

Two, as you're interested primarily in theory -- and that's what you're intending to focus on -- you'll probably be well-suited to make sure you're demonstrating a strong understanding of the current conversations that are occurring in theory in relation to past movements. Theory is very, very trendy -- be aware of that. Last thing you want is to be seen wearing last season's ideas!

I think what Phil may be warning against here is a sort of dilettante understanding of theory, dropping big names just for the sake of it, for example. Outlining a potential theoretical mode seems feasible, and the writing sample will obviously show off your ability to engage with theoretical conversations, but as you mention, simply stating that you like Derrida and Foucault and Lacan probably won't do you any favors. Theory-heads tend to be two steps ahead of everyone else in that arena, so they'd be hard to impress (i.e., they're interested in theory that was published last week). Theory is difficult to grasp in the way that academics who work with it exclusively can, so, as Phil notes, you do run the risk of appearing sophomoric.

Dr. Hilarius! Although merely bit players, Lady Mnemosyne Gloobe and Sir Hannibal Grunt-Gobbinette from GR are probably my favorite character names from Pynchon (from the make-the-aristocrats-vomit scene).

If you're applying with the BA, then programs might be relatively lenient regarding a lack of theoretical engagement as, chances are, you haven't had much opportunity to develop their place in your projected work. However, if you're applying with the MA, then you might raise a few eyebrows by not mentioning at least a critical foundation (or at least a contextualized intervention) for your ideas. But with that said, it all depends on your project. I'm sure there are plenty of cases where the critical structure doesn't hold as much weight as other aspects of the project.

These are pretty much all postmodernist thematics, so if you stay away from that genre's primary texts, you'll be fine! The thing is, these subjects are often brought up in Pomo texts as devices to break ontological boundaries. Brian McHale, in Postmodernist Fiction, does a great job of laying them all out, and Jameson is bomb for the cultural aspects of Pomo. Very. I'd skip Atlas Shrugged (not for its vile politics, but it just isn't really doing much), but IJ is worth the investment (although a considerably easier investment than, say, Moby Dick, Ulysses, Gravity's Rainbow etc). For DFW, his essays are very good, but I'd say Brief Interviews is his strongest work of fiction -- especially the story "Church Not Made with Hands."

Well there's been a bit of a Habermassian shift away from postructuralist theory (deconstruction, in particular, provokes much groaning) that's sort of sprung a resurgence of "close reading" -- but not in a strictly formalist sense. New Aesthetics etc., is attempting to wrestle texts away from the "hermeneutics of suspicion" of the postructuralists to allow the text once more to "speak" for itself. It's pretty similar to what Fried was banging on about in "Art and Objecthood" -- a sort of call to refocus and whatnot. There's certainly logic behind it. Although much of the postructuralist stuff is met with scorn these days, it's hard to deny that it paved the way for some generative (and perhaps more useful) approaches to reading a text. I guess there's an argument to be made for a disinterested and decontextualized reading of TWL, but I can't imagine it'd be much fun. That whole thing is basically allegorical catnip. Didn't Joyce say something about how he designed Ulysses to keep critics at work for centuries?

It's a beast, but it kicks White Noise's ass on every level. The first 150 or so pages are an uphill battle, but then it levels out a bit.

A great deal of preparation and thought go into feeding the form into the scantron machine, that's why it takes so long. First they have to plug the machine in, then they have to feed in the form etc. It's quite complex. But yes, if you give them even more money, you can get your scores a little sooner. I wonder what else they're willing to do if you just keep throwing more money their way?

Again, it sort of varies. I remember a couple of prompts asking something about how you comprehend diversity and how it play a role in your own academic life and whatnot. If you're not clear, honestly, contact the department. I went through this last year, and frankly I've tried to block much of it from memory. I just so happened to remember Berkeley's being very geared toward diversity, and the sample essay they had was especially about diversity. Doesn't Berkeley have a really elaborate "this is what a PS looks like" section? They did last year. If the PH doesn't have much academic reference, could you perhaps connect it through some thematic ties?

Yeah, keep an eye out for these as they're all a bit different for each program. When it asks for both, your SOP should be a little more terse, and your Personal History is where the more creative, narrative type stuff comes into play. But keep an eye for prompts because, as others have stated, the Personal History can mean Diversity Statement. If I remember correctly, Cornell did something like that. Northwestern limited the SOP to like 500 words, but wanted a much more elaborate PH. Berkeley definitely wanted the PH and DS blended with a separate SOP. They used to have that awesome example of the POS and DS/PH floating around (from the history department) but I think they've taken them down. Those were amazing pieces of writing. As far as "how personal" you should go, just think of it as the combined SOP without the academic specifics. You'll still want to demonstrate how your life events have blah blah led you to this juncture blah blah fired your interests blah, but the nitty gritty of what you want to do would be a separate deal. For consistency, you could perhaps drop a brief tie in to the PH/DS, but the separated SOP should be all business. Best bet would be to make a table of what each program wants, and then construct basic frameworks of SOP, PH, DS and SOP/PH combined. Also, look at the apps themselves (i.e. skip through the various pages) as I got hit with several impromptu "mini-essays" (all diversity statements, essentially) that required a 300 word blurb or whatnot. Again, expect them all to differ. Figure out ahead of time who wants what, and who may sneak a mini-statement on you at last minute. If it's not clear, contact the grad office directly to make sure it's clear.

The international contemporary was pretty easy -- Marquez and Borges, some Calvino, Coetzee etc. It was easy to spot -- famous passages and whatnot. I had a passage that drove me batshit for months as I tried to figure it out. All I could remember was that passage had the word "dance" repeated over and over in various forms. It was pretty broken up, so it seemed modernist (and I thought I remembered the answer options as some high-mod folks). Anyhow, I just read Reed's Mumbo Jumbo for seminar a couple of weeks back, and sure enough, there it was. Never thought that would make the test!

When I took it last year, the theory was pretty extensive. Both the ETS and the study guides made it seem like it would just be "spot the term and link to the writer" type stuff (very easy), but the kind of questions I got was more like "Who is such and such responding to in such and such argument" or "what is the primary argument of such and such's essay on topic z." I had a ton of theory (four semesters, both historical and contemporary) under my belt when I took the test, but it still kicked my ass. And no, it's not all C20 either -- they hit you with a good chunk of C18 and C19 theory as well. But that stuff's generally easier, and more along the lines of "spot the phrase." Ie. You'll need to know Arnold, Pater, Eliot, Coleridge's theory stuff. I can't remember the specific question, but there was a nasty one about Baudrillard's Simulacra. Grim. I had a ton of US on mine, but I don't remember it being more or less than British. There was a surprising amount of US contemporary poetry (something I generally don't touch) and a good chunk of international stuff too. Also, a lot of really contemporary US fiction (meaning like 1980s>)

I was keeping my fingers crossed for everyone who wrote the test yesterday, but it sounds like you all had the same experience that I did. I sat it last October and it bore no resemblance to any prep material I'd seen -- even the one supplied by the ETS (that was easy). The reading comp must have been at least 85% of the test, so all of the studying I did for it was essentially wasted. When I did the initial scan for quick points, I was shocked by how few there were -- perhaps 20 questions? Plus, I had to take it in an overcrowded, noisy, hot room so I couldn't concentrate for shit. I ended up leaving about 50 questions blank. There was a similar uproar about it last year, and the general consensus was that there were too many practice tests floating around, and so the ETS needed to overhaul it. That's the only reason people could imagine as to why it was so different from what they said it would be. But with that said, I still got some fully funded PhD offers, so while freaking out, keep in mind that it's not the be all, end all. AND, chances are, you'll never have to do anything like this again. Hang in there, everybody -- and get back to work on the meaningful aspects of your applications!

Thanks for digging this up and clarifying, sarandipidy. It's good to see they've made some changes! And this is good advice, for sure. Again, I wasn't advocating for (and hope I didn't lead anyone to) simple sentence construction, I was simply pointing out what's in my now dated "GRE cracking" guides (2010) and what I picked up from training meetings (2009). Absolutely use complex sentences and ten-dollar words, but stick to the formulaic paragraph structure so you hit all the right notes with ease. "When such as such proposes such and such, they are correct for reasons x and y, but fail to take into account reason z"; that kind of thing. Methodical, terse, and efficient are the keys! Good luck on the test, everyone!

It doesn't seem like there's a right or wrong answer to this as so much of the SOP comes down to luck of the draw regarding who reads it. If you're applying with a BA it's likely that you'd be granted some clemency as to how specific you need to be (and this would probably be somewhat desirable from the malleable student perspective) but if you have the MA, something that clearly situates you in that open space might be more appropriate as long as you can connect it to the department. As you mentioned you're looking at something uncovered, are there any concerns about exposing this gap to so many academics too soon? I mean is this a holy grail type discovery? Is it something that you can allude to in such a way that you could tie it to the department, yet leave out key insights that you'd discuss during interviews?

I should probably just point out too that my reason for emphasizing what the GRE seeks was not to influence people intentionally write lame essays on the test, it was really to assuage the feelings of being bummed out that some Grad Cafe posters had expressed from their results. The writing style required is somewhat antithetical to what we do in the humanities (which is why the score doesn't carry a lot of weight -- unless it's eyebrow-raisingly low) as opposed to, say, engineers or scientists who don't spend nearly as much time chiseling an academic voice in the same manner. I hope I didn't offend or come across like a know-it-all -- just trying to ease the suffering of those navigating this year's season.

Seem like it would depend on the award, and the circumstance under which it was given. I mean if you have a MacArthur, that would probably open some doors I listed all of mine, but I really couldn't say if they had an effect or not. It was the writing sample and SOP fit that got the greatest response from interested parties.

I was working in a writing center that was mainly staffed by PhDs (I was doing a BA) and the center director at the time had arranged a meeting with a representative for a variety of grading positions (there were some other positions available too, like local proctoring). I actually declined right off the bat, but I still sat in for the talk and the subject came up during a Q&A about the process of the work itself and what kind of time commitment would be expected. I should point out though, the only place I've ever seen this info in print was in GRE prep material from either Kaplan or Princeton Review (I forget which). One of those texts mentioned the computerized review, but didn't go into too much detail. From what I can tell (without seeing it in action) it's something along the lines of safe-assign, but mainly focuses on analytic complexity etc. It's also been a couple of years, so maybe they've veered away from this? I'd certainly hope so. If people are concerned about it, I'd simply suggest following the guidelines in the "crack" texts -- they give you a solid idea of how to approach the writing efficiently, and to give the ETS what they're looking for. Again, a creatively written piece that diverts from an orthodox structure will likely prove to be problematic, so best bet is to play it safe and nail the argument well following the suggested formulaic strategies, and don't get too crazy. It's probably the easiest part of the GRE -- and one that few grad programs seriously take into consideration, so don't stress it too much.

Actually, it's both. A computer grades it first, analyzing for sentence complexity and variation. It determines keywords that should be used for given topics, and looks at phrasing structures related to pre-programmed standards. It assigns a grade based on this and generates a report. A reader, usually a graduate student who may or may not have experience with composition, scans the essay (90 seconds is the suggested average) and verifies the computer's report. How do I know this? I was approached to be a grader. I'll reiterate from direct experience that what they want is a formulaic 5-paragraph-esque structure. Good luck to all those who have it coming up!

The voice of reason speaketh!

Is it thematic at all? runonsentence is right that you shouldn't term it a survey if you're not looking at the expansive history or the progression of theory (i.e. 500BC onwards) unless you just stick with the original "contemporary." With that said, having something that suggests "history" of "survey" would look good on the transcript alongside say a more specialized focus. What texts / theorists / schools are you looking at? If you're using an anthologized or summarized sources (Norton / Parker / Barry) it might be hard to focus on one area, but if you're reading primary material, you might be able to group it in such a way that would speak to your intended graduate track i.e. "Mangos in Contemporary Thought" if, say, you plan to go into mango studies. (I saw a paper being delivered at MLA on "mango studies" that had me grinning for hours.) My advisor hit me early with theory and told me to double, triple, quadruple up on it while in UG. I ended up with two historic surveys and two themed studies of contemporary theory (Beauty/Abjection/Aesthetics; Wilde/Historicist/Queer). If you don't have any other "survey of criticism" on your transcript, you might do best just to name it something at least close to that just the avoid the potential (although unlikely) red flag of having no theory work listed. You could always just go for a meta-title: "Contemporary Critical Theory: Pointless Babbling En Francais" or something like that.

That's the one aspect of the GRE I found valuable: learning the vocab -- because of its practical use. I used a combination of purchased flash cards, iPhone apps, online lists, as well as my own flash cards. Once the material was organized, I just carried them everywhere I went, and every day I'd knock a few off my list until by the time of the test I had probably close to 1000 memorized. But it sounds like that's all changed now, hasn't it? No more arbitrary analogies? That's where you really needed the crazy vocab stuff. When I took the test last year, my experimental section was from the new verbal format -- and I assume they were still fine-tuning the difficulty levels because it was laughably easy. The reading comp questions were all very short and easy to follow compared to the unreadable, convoluted jargon I had to deal with during my actual test. I'm sure they've ramped it up since then. So if you take anything of value from it, capitalize on that. I still have the vocab apps on my phone, and will occasionally play around with them at the gym. That's how I roll.

Although I'm sure runonsentence is already familiar with it, for anyone looking to improve their balancing sources with original content, "They Say / I Say" does a great job of covering the basics. It's probably a bit fundamental for most grads, but I got a lot out of it. To the OP, if this is the paper you really want to use and these comments have made you uncertain about your submission, there are always things you can do to shoehorn external research into your work -- it's just not something you can do the night before. By quickly browsing a few articles that appear to be about a similar topic, you could potentially get an idea of what other researchers are using as their methods and go from there. It might also be wise to hit up some profs in your current program and ask if they could take a look and perhaps suggest some frameworks to support it.