truckbasket

I remember seeing an unofficial list of "new-Ivies" and WUSTL was on it, as was Vanderbilt. WUSTL has a fantastic placement program, too.

You'd be surprised. When you look at the specific placement from some of the Ivies, they're placing some of their graduates in rinky-dink no-name locations. A surprising amount of their grads are ending up in community colleges / state schools where 4/5 and 5/5 loads are the norm -- meaning no research / writing. This is primarily due to the super-saturation of the profession and its specific fields (some of which are far more saturated than others i.e. 20th C. American is by far the most overpopulated, whereas job prospects for medieval / rhet / comp aren't nearly as bad). And if you glance through the listings of a few top 50 small LACs, you'll find that nearly all of the faculty are from top 15 PhDs with the odd wild card thrown in of someone who graduated from Chicken Leg Community College, AL but had some crazy success in other areas. The smaller, private LACs operate like businesses, and what better way to sell your $200k program to some prospective kid's parents than to fill your ranks with top-tier PhDs. It's sad, but it's just how it is. If the top 15 are out then the trick, it seems, is to become the wild card -- which I think would be more fun anyway.

One last thing to chew on that plays a big role in the process is just how much energy does the program invest in placement. What training, specific to the profession and the job market, do they offer? A friend’s husband is a prof at a NY institution ranked somewhere in the 70s. He recently took on the role of Director of Placement and Professional Development, and in just one year, their placement rate went from less than 15% to 100% (no exaggeration). Obviously the program didn’t change in this time, nor did its reputation. But the relentless effort that this guy put into getting these students placed made all the difference. So that’s a key factor as well.

A couple additional things to consider: 1. Rankings are somewhat slippery in that a program’s prestige can sometimes shift within a relatively small period of time (five years or so). If a program catches your eye that’s not in the top 15, but is pioneering some relevant advances within the field, it might still be worth pursuing further. It’s a bit more of a crapshoot than sticking with the safety of the Ivies, but there may be some advantages to jumping in with a more progressive, forward-thinking program if that lends itself to the kind of work you’re interested in. (Digital Humanities, Rhet/Comp spring to mind). 2. The humanities have trends that come and go, and those trends can be very effective when on the market. Hiring institutions will often align their needs to what’s hot in the field, in addition to looking for scholars who show transdisciplinary research. The ability to keep your thumb on the pulse of professional trends and marketing yourself as a scholar who owns several academic hats will also increase your chances of catching a committee's attention. (Of course this can be tricky as what’s fashionable now might not be so in six years, but at least being mindful to the direction of the field is important.) 3. Ivies have problems that are unique to them regarding the job market. Greg Semenza makes some good points about the state of the Ivies in the current market: “Many Ivy League Ph.D.s find themselves being systematically excluded from certain kinds of job searches [. . .] because of unfair assumptions regarding their willingness to profess in nonelite colleges and university settings. In fact, job placement has become an extremely difficult matter for faculty and administrators at many prestigious universities, where placement rates have in many cases sunk below those reported by institutions usually ranked lower.” While it’s still true that the Ivory tower is still the best guarantee of a TT position, they face their own set of obstacles that lower-ranked programs don’t have to deal with. 4. It’s been mentioned, but if the work you’re doing is innovative and relevant, and you’re in a situation where you have good support to actively do the work and build your name as a new scholar, this can serve to somewhat level the playing field against better-ranked programs. On one of my visits to a medium-ranked program, I met with a student who is essentially being courted by several institutions based on his unique dissertation that was already picked up to become a published monograph. I also know several academics who landed their TT positions, not solely through their scholarly writing, but through side work writing articles / texts that are less erudite and have a more accessible role in the world. In a prickly political climate in which the humanities constantly has to justify their existence, finding meaningful ways to bridge scholarly erudition and throw a rope down from the Ivory tower is becoming increasingly important. 5. Lastly, teaching experience is vital. In the hilariously dated, yet still useful, “Getting What You Came For,” Robert Peters says “The amount of teaching-free financial aid you are offered by different schools should be a major factor in deciding which school to attend – the less teaching, the better” (54). Although dangerously misleading on a nuclear scale, this demonstrates just how rapidly the nature of the field has shifted (the revised text came out 1997). And this is one of the problems that the Ivies (or very well-funded programs with fewer teaching requirements) can be faced with. In his book, Semenza mentions a well-respected institution that won’t even consider a potential applicant who has fewer than ten classes taught under her belt. So having the ability to fine tune your teaching chops while completing your Ph.D. is hugely important, and having a spectrum of courses on your C.V. will only work in your favor. Although not greatly ranked, one of the programs I was looking at offered a fantastic stipend (almost 30k) and was quite boastful of the fact that very little teaching would be required (only two classes taught during the five year duration). I ended up going with a program that offered me half the money, and a butt load of teaching experience. Although it’ll be challenging, I’ll come out of that program having taught a variety of courses in a variety of styles, which, I think, will help in the long run. Of course, attending an Ivy is going to provide you with a degree of insulation on the job market that simply can’t be matched. However, to reiterate Semenza’s main point: there are ways in which the playing field can still be leveled. If you’re able to do work that is meaningful, pertinent, and fresh while receiving the support you need to do so – and gaining that all important teacher training – the market should (hopefully) be somewhat responsive to that (I know that it is from firsthand experience on committees). So much of this process is serendipitous, but I’ll speak for myself by saying that I busted my ass to get to this point, and I’m more than willing to keep on busting it to do some cool work. And as long as I do that, I’m sure things will fall into place however they’re supposed to.

That's awesome that your writers are willing to tailor all your individual letters -- you're very fortunate and should totally take advantage of their generosity. Having been on and around several committees, I can tell you that it's not the norm at all, however, as many applicants are applying to multiple programs (like more than ten) and to ask writers to tailor each one might be considered impolite. One thing I can say for certain is that grad programs do not expect tailored letters at all, and definitely won't consider an applicant / applicant's writer to be lazy or issuing any slaps to the face for not doing so simply for the fact that they're read by the same people who also have to write them for their own students, who know firsthand that individual tailoring is out of the question (in most situations) due to time restrictions. Having had direct personal experience with serving on a committee, and having toiled through more than 350 of these letters, I can again confirm that tailoring of LoR is pretty much unheard of and unnecessary. If you can get your writers to do it, that's awesome, and totally go for it; but what the readers are solely looking for is a picture of you (the applicant) and your ability to succeed in a graduate program -- any graduate program -- not just theirs. And in that regard, Interfolio won't work for you because it's geared more toward the standard practice of generic LoR sending, not personalized stuff. Most online applications allow you to enter up to five LoRs in their system. I was very fortunate in that I had several people who wanted to write letters for me, and so I was essentially spoiled for choice. Consequently, most of my prospective programs received more than three letters, and I found out after the fact (during subsequent visits / conversation) that indeed, they were all read and considered. In short, it can't hurt. But if in doubt, maybe contact the program's coordinator and make sure they're okay with it. I actually applied to Cornell, and that's one program that didn't get letter bombed! If I remember correctly, their online app only allowed for three anyway. I had one just like that! The guy is a brilliant Joyce scholar, but had difficulty with all things techy. Anyhow, when I asked him to write, he mentioned Interfolio, saying that he uses the service so much for submitting letters for his undergrads that he has his own account established with them. Shows how little I knew!

Interfolio is the standard and most commonly used service in academia, although I've personally only run into while on faculty searches. Out of the hundred or so candidates we reviewed, there were fewer than five who didn't use Interfolio to provide us with their details. In fact many UGs provide their own version of the service for free, so using something like this is both very common for grad apps as well as during job searches. When you're on the market, it's somewhat of a requirement as it lends that degree of professional sheen similar to professional organization membership and whatnot. Are you asking your LoR writers to tailor each of your letters for each program you apply to? That would certainly be very kind of them to do that, but it's not the norm. I've read hundreds of LoRs in my time and they're all enthusiastic, but generic. They're written and designed to be interchangeable so that they can be used in multiple situations. If your writers are willing to tailor each one, however, that's great! I can guarantee you'll be one of the few!

Here's my conspiracy theory of the day, given that I'm no big fan of the ETS: When you take the subject test in October, the results are made available mid-November -- mere days after the date of the second subject test. While it's understandable that the ETS would double up on testing dates at this time because it's the application season, I can't help but wonder how many people take the test in October, freak out that they totally borked it, and instantly sign up for a retest in November as precaution because they won't find out their October scores in time. (Keep in mind that this thing is basically a big Scranton and would theoretically take seconds to score.) But yeah, this is probably my cynical mind running wild as the ETS always has a student's best interests in mind and would never think of doing something so nefarious just to get another $140.

There are so many things to take into consideration in this process, and the deadlines will really creep up on you. If I could throw out one suggestion I'd say try and bump all of your deadlines forward by at least a couple of weeks to allow for potential glitches. If your app is due Dec 1st, it's now due Nov 15th -- that kind of thing. Even though I had some that were a month apart, I pretty much set myself one deadline for the completion of everything and tried to stick to it. Most of my deadlines were the first week of Dec, but you can usually start entering the application way in advance. By doing this, you get to see the nuanced stuff that each program requires (I had to write a couple of surprise 200-word blurbs about specific topics at last minute) and also make the final submission a little smoother. Also allow for some net congestion (servers going down under pressure etc.) and general interface problems in the final week of submission. I did all my research in the Spring / Summer alongside studying for both GREs (which I took in Sept and Oct). I also had a potential framework with several drafts of my SOP wrapped up before the fall semester kicked in. During the fall semester, I worked on condensing a thesis to article length to use for the WS, while continuing to tailor the SOP and work on the other parts of the application. All LOR writers were contacted and provided with an early SOP draft / WS abstract by the first week of Oct. Keep in mind that some programs want a comprehensive SOP that places your academic interests alongside your personal history whereas other want them separated. Some ask for a diversity statement (which is a twist on the personal history statement) and some ask for statements of teaching philosophy. In other words, if you're drafting frameworks to base your tailored SOPs on, be prepared to rewrite to address different requests. Make sure you have copies of transcripts all ready to go too (although some programs don't need them upfront). I had a bunch of paper copies, and scanned versions that I could attach to e-apps. Although few programs do the snail-mail thing anymore, be on the watch out for those that do -- specifically how they handle it. UofT is particularly mind-bending in their process, requiring both electronic submission as well as paper, both going to different departments. Although I didn't apply, I seem to remember that Michigan does something similar. There are just a few thoughts to chew on; and sadly, that's just a small part of the whole process. There's a lot to think about, but good organization will help immensely.

Play from 1:25 to 4:25

I must admit that when I wrote it I paused and scratched my head a few times but never bothered to verify its usage. It has now been registered as a no-no.

It's a good idea to keep such a list handy, but again, keep in mind that just because a program doesn't require it, that doesn't mean that they don't accept and consider it. There is a huge difference between a program that makes it optional and one that rejects it, and your list should make this very clear for future grad cafe patrons who may stumble upon it thinking they can sidestep the GRE and still have equal footing. I can guarantee you that if you're looking at "a couple of Ivy Schools," you will be up against hundreds of applicants who not only have top-notch subject scores in the high 700s, but are also submitting and highlighting them with their application -- regardless of the program's policy. To quote UPenn's department page, "The GRE Subject Test in Literature is recommended but not required; although scoring well on the Subject Test may help your application, not taking the Subject Test will not adversely affect your application." You can parse this however you want. But just be clear on your list that these schools (the ones who make the test optional) actually do accept, review, and take into consideration strong subject scores and that by skipping it you may not be "adversely affecting your application" as a individual, isolated document, but you will certainly be placing yourself at a distinct disadvantage to the other applicants who did submit strong test scores. The only Ivy that rejects it (as of right now) is Columbia.

They certainly have the name recognition. Although I applied (and was rejected) the program wasn't as good a fit for me as some of the others I looked at. With that said, their funding is phenomenal and their placement record is fantastic. Also, I know a couple of grads who are both teaching in great programs now, and they told me that out of all the Ivies, Princeton is the most kick-back and gives it's students more autonomy to work however they like. If they have the people you want to work with, definitely give it a shot.

There are, and they vary from program to program. To be honest, I wouldn't even bother to look them up as it'll only add to your anxiety. Just know that for top-ten programs they are quite high, but even then the test still only makes up a small fraction of your overall application package.

You're going to need way more than that. I think the Kaplan flash cards kits are about 500 words, and frankly, I don't think that's even enough. I'd start with those, though and then hit the Barron's lists. There are good resources online for this, but yes, you need a lot more than 150. Hand-write your own flash cards if possible and go through them two or three times a day, removing the ones you're remembering. Revisit the ones you think you know now and again, but focus on the ones that cause you problems. Also pay attention to word structure and root derivation (it's part of the GRE cracking strategy) as that helps hugely. The first word on my test was "ambrosial," which was not on any of my flash card lists (it's on them all now!) but wasn't hard to figure out through context and the POI strategy. Aside from that, you need to be able to attenuate your writing skills to the level of, say, a twelve-year-old in order to impress the robot that grades the writing section. It's essentially looking for five, uninspired and formulaic paragraphs that hit specific sentence structures with a smattering of poignant quotes to show that you've read something at some point in your life. Oh, and apparently, it rewards for quantity of words over quality. But the best skill you can take into the GRE is speed-reading and the ability to concentrate and sidestep intentional traps. When I took the test, my "experimental section" was from the new format's verbal part -- and it was ridiculously easy. I can only assume that they were still fine tuning because the sentence completions were laughable and the reading comprehension passages were rarely more than one paragraph as opposed to the page-long Ikea furniture assembly instructions that I was made to read. But yes, you'll most likely run into some cut-off problems if you can't score a little higher. However, again, it's just not worth the stress as there are far more important things to this process that are as (if not) more challenging. The GRE plays a small role, but without it you'll need to find another way to keep the committee's eyes on the rest of your material. There are definitely mixed feelings about doing so, but some investigative e-snooping and making contact with a POI might cause them to hang onto your app a little longer than they previously might have. (I say this because I've heard first-hand compelling reasons why you both should and shouldn't make extensive contact.) Wait, so you're saying you don't do well reading illogical and frustrating text on a shitty computer screen in an uncomfortable cubicle while under ridiculous and inhumane time constraints? Jeez, what's the matter with you?

Well the trick really is to give it your best shot -- and by that I mean spending some time studying for it and making sure you're able to concentrate for the three hours or so that it takes. Some people do well on these things, and some people do not. It's just not worth the stress that it tends to create. Do your best, and see where the cards fall. Also, keep in mind that this is probably the last test of this nature that you'll ever have to take. Some programs have field exams to make sure you're well-versed in all areas of the canon, but they're not quite so comprehensive as this. Quals don't even remotely resemble this, and, while certainly anxiety-producing, are quite practical in their function -- and more aligned with what humanists actually do. As far as lacking Brit Lit and <1800, that might be a problem -- not just for the test, but in your goal to become an expert in the field. Of course none of us is expected to know everything about all literature for our professional careers, but a passing, superficial knowledge of literary history is obviously important in that, for example, you can't really read Ulysses unless you've read Homer. The good news is, as you'll find out, the stuff you need to know for the subject test is really just that -- passing knowledge. I think in one of the study guides I read they used the metaphor of being at a cocktail party in which you're required to appear knowledgeable simply by throwing around tidbits of information. That's what this test is supposedly all about. (Mine wasn't that at all, but in general that's what it's supposed to be.) For example, you will be tested on Beowulf, Gawain, Paradise Lost, Canterbury Tales etc. but this is stuff that is pretty easy to learn and spot. In fact, what you'll most likely find is that once you read some snippets, you'll want to read these texts (many of them aren't that long). Shakespeare is huge on the test, obviously, and there aren't really as many easy ways around that other than reading as much as you can. That Vade Mecum page gives you some great tips on how to spot certain authors from just a couple of themes, or specific lines. I worked two non-academic jobs, taught two classes, worked in a Writing Center, had a full-course load, researched and wrote one standard and one honors thesis, and applied to thirteen programs while I studied. It sucked -- big time. But one thing I can say for certain is that I spent far too much time studying for it. There were people on here posting about how well they did after just cracking their books a couple of days prior (or simply not at all), whereas others slaved over their texts for months and did poorly. Again, what this thing tests is that you have some basic canonical knowledge, but also how well you can take standardized tests. Were I you, I wouldn't restrict yourself to programs that reject the test (and by this I don't mean programs that simply "don't require it" or make it optional, as those programs are the ones whose applicants will still be submitting strong subject test scores), but I'd pick up the study guides and work your way through them, a page or two a day -- if for no other reason, so that you'll have some Brit Lit. / <1800 knowledge under your belt. Apply to the programs that you'd want to be in, irregardless to whether or not they require the test. Your 'fitting' in to the program, and the kind of work you'd be doing is far more important to them than some three-digit number. Plan on taking the test, give it your best shot, and if your score blows goat, keep in mind that plenty of other people who totally borked it still got into great, funded programs. So just cross that bridge when (if) you come to it And to address Emelye's point about Duke, one program is a more traditional English track, the other is comparative literature. I forget which is which, but they make it pretty clear on the website. Also, if Brown is now making the test optional (are they making it optional or rejecting it?), then I think that's new. I remember briefly researching them last year, and I'm pretty sure they required it then. Could be wrong though.

Keep in mind that some of the programs that make the test 'optional' will still accept the subject test scores results; Duke, Vanderbilt and Northwestern were doing that last season. And maybe I'm reading too much into it, but unless a program outright rejects it (Columbia, UCR), the score can still be used as leverage -- meaning that the applicant who nails it might have an (admittedly small) additional edge compared to the applicant who didn't submit. Until more programs openly reject the test (and state the reason why), it's going to be a necessary evil of the process. To the OP, spend some time brushing up on your Nortons, read through the links posted in the other current thread on the subject, but mainly focus on your test taking skills -- the same kind you learn to 'crack' the standard GRE. Frankly, the test isn't worth your time if you're feeling pressured by other aspects of the process, but it still holds some weight -- even at the 'optional' programs. Just keep in mind, it's universally hated.

The standard test wasn't too bad for me as it was in a dedicated testing facility, so I got a little cubicle thing. There were still lots of distractions, but it wasn't awful. I'm just not great at reading dense blocks of text on a computer screen (it hurts my eyes), and so, of course, I got slammed with three separate sets of reading comprehension questions (despite the study guides saying there would only be two), all on unreadable, poorly written technical jargon. And keep in mind that the accompanying questions are designed to make you fail by either tripping you up with semantic trickery and sucking up all your time -- so you have to be on your toes and watch for subtle nuances or inferred statements. The subject test environment was very different. It was in a classroom designed to hold 40 students, but they had a headcount of 63. They tried to set up tables for people in the hallway, but didn't have enough staff to monitor the overflow test takers, so we were asked to share desks with one another; the noise from the other test takers and the construction was simply unbearable. (I probably should have asked for earplugs, but I was hardly in a rational frame of mind. Plus, the sixty seconds it would take to ask / get the plugs would have probably cost me a good five or so questions.) The whole thing was a farce, but it's not like I was expecting much from the ETS. As for schools not requiring the test, there are several now. And from what I understand, that number is increasing rapidly. When I was doing my research, there were several top-tier programs that stated that the score was not required, yet still urged people to send it (if they did well). There are a couple of programs (Columbia being one) that outright and vociferously reject it, and more seem to be heading in that direction. However, there are still plenty of programs that still rely on it as an initial chopping block -- even though it's not a key part of the application. I take consolation in the fact that the GRE is not indicative of any useful skill in the humanities, and that the widespread disdain for the test within the profession is fairly common. Could you imagine if programs actually placed value in speed reading, inane analogies, writing formulaic five-paragraph essays, cutting as many corners as possible, and analyzing texts based solely on the the first sentence of a page? Aside from the time-saving pragmatic function of turning living, breathing applicants into quantifiable statistics, the only thing the ETS does well is maintain their choke hold and make a shit-load of money. Cynicism overload! But on the positive side, my vocabulary got a significant boost.

Apparently, typing the letter 'b' followed by a parenthesis in a Grad Cafe post creates one of those smiling things. The above is supposed to be a 'b )'

I don't mean to stir up concern, as clearly a lot of people had an okay time with the test. My experience was different, and frankly, it was the most frustrating part of the application process for me. I studied (almost) every day for about six months; I was nailing the practice tests, and had compiled and memorized a ton of flash cards. In short, I was super prepared with the trivial knowledge stuff and ready to go and kick its ass. The problem that I ran into was that what was on the test (I sat it Sept 2010) was quite different from the practice tests (especially the ETS ones), and there was a lot of material not on any of my study lists. But the most damaging part for me was that the breakdown of subject areas provided by ETS was completely off-base. I'd say that about 85% of my test was straight-up reading comprehension, making the six months of canonical study pretty worthless. Combine this with the fact that I was in an overcrowded room (they overbooked it by 23 students and the next test taker was less than 2ft from my face) with loud construction right outside the window, and several people right next to me tapping their pencils, hammering calculators (they mix test subjects from various fields), some were even sounding out words under their breath, and I found I couldn't concentrate at all. And because of the much higher amount of reading comprehension than advertised, the ability to concentrate was key. In short, I didn't stand a chance. Although I did well on the standard test, both the subject and the reading comprehension part of the standard did illuminate a flaw in my academic capabilities: I really need a quiet environment to concentrate on what I'm reading, nor can I absorb a whole page of text by simply reading the first five words. Although I was fortunate to still get very generous offers from PhD programs, but I do think that my lousy subject score hurt my chances at other places. So were I you, I'd be somewhat skeptical about what the ETS tells you is on the test, and prepare yourself for a potentially much larger amount of reading comprehension questions than canonical knowledge; speed reading and test taking strategies are key. Also, for me, the theory was way more in depth than I was led to believe. I'd taken a ton of theory courses, including a comprehensive historical survey, so I felt 100% fine answering the kind of questions that were coming up in the practice tests (a simple matter of knowing who to attribute certain terminology/tone of writing to). The kind of stuff I was getting was more along the lines of "Who is Judith Butler responding to in such and such a work?" or "The focus of Deleuze's Rhizome is on a) multiplicity arbitrariness c) cheese" etc. In other words, it was way more complex than anything I'd seen in the study guides. Again, this was the most disappointing aspect for me because I was more than prepared for the test; I worked really hard and invested a lot of time and effort into it. But the horrible environment I took it in, combined with what appeared to be a whole different group of readings, really messed me up. Having talked to several others who took the same test I did, it seems that that one was an anomaly and there were several questions that we still don't know the answers to. Hopefully they've gone back to testing what their website says they'll test you on. So if I were you, keep doing what you're doing, but just be prepared for a possible crap shoot of material. Best of luck to you!

Not to belabor belaborable things, but your criteria for where you want to be located might also be problematic w/r/t to academia as a career. Hopefully by the time you're done, things will have changed a bit and there will be some hope for work. But as it stands right now, your geographic fussiness won't fly on the job market either; you really have to go where the work is. And that might mean working in godforsaken and satanically hot places (like LA). I know several professors who commute BY AIRPLANE to their jobs, simply because of family logistics or because their university is located in some total armpit or something. (And BTW, some of the places you ruled out -- like Stanford, Berkeley -- have very moderate temperatures compared to some summers in the North East. The Pacific NW is deliciously gloomy and dank. I also despise sunlight, so I know about such things.)

What you're proposing would take about six dissertations. Aesthetics is the exact opposite of a "relatively narrow topic." You could not possibly be more ill-informed. "The Liminal Space of Restrooms in American Realist Literature" is an example of a relatively narrow topic. Find whichever professor told you aesthetics is a narrow topic and beat them senseless with a copy of Blackwell's Anthology of Aesthetics -- a brick of a text that documents 2500 years of aesthetics study. Not to sound condescending, but it appears that you might be equally mis-informed about what graduate study in the humanities entails. But considering where you are in your undergraduate career, this is pretty much okay right now and sort of where you're supposed to be. I had absolutely no clue how specific I needed to be when I was in your shoes. And when somebody told me I need to have a (relatively) clear and defined "project" to pitch to admissions offices (meaning specialization), I just about bricked myself. As Greg Semenza states, "the first aim of every graduate student should be to know something extraordinary or at least something ordinary deeply." But once more, the good news is that by getting feedback from sites like this, you're way ahead of the game. I hope what you're figuring out is that you're off target by a mile right now, and there are a lot of people here who are very gently trying to help you sharpen your aim. Yep. But good ones. I think that's what's causing some of the confusion here, Jake. The OP has said s/he simply doesn't like a lot of things, and therefore that has sort of been the end of it. Although certain school may have been seriously pooh-poohed in various ways, they're still essential foundations for the ideas of others. The New Critics have been pretty much laughed out of contemporary study, but we still do close readings and "compare and contrast" style work, don't we? (I'd should point out here that, Cultural Studies aside, I actually love what the NC's proposed.) Bottom line, Two Espressos: you're in very good shape because you're figuring this stuff out in advance. Once in a grad program, you'll be able to cast your net relatively wide for at least a couple of years, but then you're going to have to choose one solitary catch to really focus on, otherwise a dissertation will be out of the question. And you know what? we all may be wrong -- you might very well find a way to focus on a wide array of topics and find a succinct way to unite them. Here's my concern for you: as it stands, you'll find it very difficult to even get into a grad program with your current opinions the way they are. If nothing else, you need to pretend you're interested in focused study -- at least temporarily.

I smell an independent study!

As you do seem to be all over the place (which is a good place to be while completing your BA), would it be possible for you to try your hand at an extended research project -- maybe an independent study with a professor you like? The reason why is that it might give you a taste of how you'd work with a specialized focus rather than what appears to be a disparate array of possible interests. Writing my undergraduate senior thesis helped to steer me toward the topics than I'm working on now, and I wish that I'd had more opportunities to work on similar projects during undergrad. I'll also go out on a limb and take a guess that you're taking a lot of survey courses (I could be totally wrong about this) -- and if that's the case, it might be advisable to start taking more specialized seminars. Surveys are great (I still love them), but you only get a very superficial glimpse of the subject -- probably not enough to make absolute judgments. And with that in mind, I'd be curious to see if you can articulate why you're opposed to so many things -- not to list them here, by any means -- but for your own benefit. The only reason I bring this up is because many of the undergrads who I work with are also certain that they dislike a lot of things, but can rarely say why. (It's nearly always for purely emotional reasons rather than determining that a subject's academic value would be of little use to them.) For somebody who wanted to study all of theory, you're certainly writing off a lot of theory and periods in which theory was prominent. I guess my concern is that the humanities, perhaps above all other disciplines, require a large degree of open-mindedness. Whether we like or don't like our subject on an emotional level is moot for what we do, right? I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at here, but if you're saying what I think you're saying (that the canon is built on formal proficiency), it's a bit of a tenuous connection. Aesthetics is murky at best, and it crosses into canonization with figures like Matthew Arnold and definitions of taste, etc. However, it's pretty commonly understood that canonization is far more political than anything. Also, be wary of writing off cultural studies so easily as not only does it include an immensity of theoretical approaches (many which cross over into the things you say you like), but it's perhaps the most widely referenced area for interdisciplinary work. And keep in mind marketability: If you were to show up for a job talk and say you're in the humanities but not interested in the influence of culture, I can't imagine that that would go over well at all.

I study aesthetics; and no, there really is no specifically demarcated sub-field for aesthetics in literature (you'd be hard pressed to argue that one exists in visual art, too). Just as the writers you listed as part of a "standard literary theory program" -- Marx (Politics), Lacan (Psychoanalysis), and Derrida (Linguistics) -- are not really not literary theorists, their ideas can be used by literary scholars as a lens to derive meaning from texts. Looking at visual aesthetics in literature might span from the historic trajectory of the field (Plato --> Hegel, or whatever), but might also include ideas put forth by Walter Benjamin, Rousseau, Matthew Arnold, to Clement Greenberg or Warhol. It might include feminist theory, post-colonial, queer -- pretty much whatever the work requires. The point I'm trying to make is the same as what Cullen was getting at: theory really exists outside of such rigid categories (especially of late) and you're not resigned to a certain canonical grouping whatsoever. If you want to read actual literary theory designed specifically for and aimed at literature, pick up one of those Norton Anthologies and read up through the progression. Having a working knowledge of writers such as Horace, Aquinas, Sidney, Dryden, Pope, Coleridge, Peacock, Frye, Shelley, Bakhtin, Brooks, Eliot, Barthes, Bloom, Eagleton etc. will be key for your study of theory, and they're more clearly aligned with literary works than Lacan or Derrida. That's not to say one is better than the other, the nature of your proposed project will determine who you need to be reading closely. For example, I recently wrote about a work in which I argued that its compositional balance exists not in the visual, but in the abstract. I used Breton and the surrealist manifesto alongside Hal Foster's work on the Death Drive and Kristeva's notion of abjection. Those writers aren't talking that much about aesthetics or literature per se, but what they are addressing allowed me to 'read' a work, and hopefully shed new light onto its aesthetic value. You see what I mean? A straight-up survey of aesthetics will certainly feature some big name hitters and demonstrate a defined historic trajectory (and you will certainly need a working knowledge of the main texts), but depending on what specific area you plan to write about (see, there's that specificity again) you might be dealing with anything from art manifestos, to studies of metaphor, to gender construction, to French symbolism, to portraiture and self-representation etc. So again, you probably won't find a shelf at the bookstore specifically for aesthetics in literature -- and nor should you. Hopefully this is all hinting at the necessity of funneling your research into something more focused.

Deleuze?