Phil Sparrow

Well, I'm making these assessments based off placement records and faculty moves, and my understanding of this stuff is limited to English programs. And like I said, it's not that big a shift. Yale and Princeton, for instance, have had fairly disappointing placement in the last 5-10 years and are sort of dismissed as "over" by a lot of younger scholars. Northwestern and UVa, meanwhile, have had quite impressive placement records and are looking good--I suspect they'll be the new major players if they can weather the dumb administrative crap going on at their universities. UC Davis is definitely on the upswing, though at this point I believe (someone correct me if I'm wrong) they have a stronger regional than national placement record. Penn, for so long an early modern power house, is potentially aging out of that power (faculty are retiring, etc.), though as far as I know it's still placing decently and probably will continue to do so at least for a few years. WashU is looking impressive these days. For a long time Brown was only a big deal to people who are starstruck by Ivies (that is, more to students than search committees), but it's looking pretty freakin' sweet these days, and I think it's been placing well. UT-Austin is a red hot program at the moment, too. As DH stuff becomes more and more important to university governing boards and state legislatures, we may see Nebraska busting onto the scene, but that might not be for a while yet, since honestly there's still some real bias against what are considered "flyover" programs.

To some extent, yes, job recs from top medievalists will make a difference. However, a job search committee is not composed of or headed only by people in your field, and a contemporary world literature scholar is unlikely to know or care who your committee members are. The name on your diploma matters a lot. And, while a number of the names in the traditional set of "top" schools are currently being supplanted by a new crop of "top" programs--that is to say that the old guard is indeed giving way to a new guard--it's not that major a shift. You're still going to want to go to a name-brand, publicly prestigious program. Otherwise, frankly, your job dossier might not even get read. Search committees get inundated with applicants and usually look for any reason to cull the herd, including cutting anyone who didn't come from a top-tier program. In other words, you want to go somewhere with a great "university name" AND top medievalists to write you job letters.

They do not.

This is one of the reasons behind all of those "Just Don't Go!" articles that piss us all off so much. Because finding this out when you're in your thirties and are overqualified for any other job because of your doctorate is awful, and really common.

.

Sometimes DGSs don't know this stuff because they have very little to do with placement. If the DGS doesn't have firm information for you, ask the placement director or her equivalent.

This essay is useful in pointing out that placement rates really don't matter. What you do want to ask about includes: in the past 5-7 years, - how many PhDs did you put on the market? - Where and to what were they applying? - How many have gotten jobs? - What kinds of jobs did they get? (<-- this is a biggie. Were the jobs academic? If so, were they TT, postdoc, adjunct, etc? If alt-ac, what types?) - If they got TT jobs, what kind? (That is, high teaching/low research, R1, etc?) - Where? (<-- Also a biggie; relates to previous question.) - How long were those who have gotten jobs on the market? - If applicable, and more specifically, how many seasons did they spend on the market for TT jobs? - What fields were they in? - Who were their diss directors? Moot are stats that address the above questions but date from before the last half-decade or so. Don't believe anyone who tells you that their crappy placements are just a factor of the recession and they expect them to improve in the future (whenever that is). Expect the current academic climate to be the new normal, whether or not the global/American economy returns to its pre-recession health.

UNC, Columbia, Northwestern, Rutgers (all strong in your focus, all with reputations, at least for early modern, of fostering the kind of environment you seek).

Top for Ren in general, I'd say*: Northwestern, Columbia, Penn, UNC, Stanford, Michigan, Rutgers, Penn State, UCLA, UC Davis, UVA. You're looking at quite canonical stuff, so almost anywhere that's strong in Renaissance lit would be good for you. Plus, everywhere that's strong in Ren in general is also strong for Ren drama, because that's how the field has gone for the last 30 years (though that is something that's changing now, it seems). * Not in a calculated order, but in the order that immediately comes to mind; take that as you will. Bear in mind there are also a number of other really strong programs, but these are the ones that tend to get the most buzz these days. ETA: I would not recommend doing an MA at any of these places, unless it's the first phase of the PhD (a la Penn State).

I agree with Zinc: no gifts, especially to anyone in the program you will be attending. You can't go wrong with thank-you cards, though.

What period? Those interests are quite broad; if you could narrow them down a bit, I might be able to toss some recommendations your way. Off the top of my head (though these would depend on what era or region you want to study): UVa, UT Austin. Northwestern if you're doing early modern or late Medieval stuff.

Of course there are always going to be exceptions, but in general: yes.

My perspective as the type of student you'd be approaching: If a prospective applicant approached me with this question, especially with an offer to pay me to rework/edit/proof a writing sample to be used in the application to my program, I would decline. It would strike me as very unethical. Now, if you were to establish a personal relationship with someone and later on they offered to look over your WS as a personal favor, that would be a different story. I'd be careful if I were you, though. You don't want a current student mentioning to an adcom member that you asked her to involve herself in anything shady (monetary compensation for what is in some ways a back-door leg-up in the application process). Such a thing, by the way, might very well come up in casual conversation. ETA: I just realized that your original post didn't mention monetary compensation. I would still probably decline in order to avoid overstepping any ethical boundaries, however. Favors, though, code somewhat differently than paid work.

Those names indicate endowed professorships, meaning that they are extra fancy and the profs (in most cases) have gotten promotions beyond "full professor."

Honestly, I see this advice here all the time and disagree with it, especially if one wants to be a researcher as well as a teacher in the end. Those "lower-ranked" (fraught term, I know) programs with good placement rates often only place into teaching-oriented positions for which one will have to give up the dream of doing research. If you are fine with the prospect of a 4-4 or even 5-5 load at your future job (plus service, minus your own scholarship), go for those lower-tier programs. If not, don't waste the application fee. My respectful $0.02.

Who cares if something is new or not? Just because a field of inquiry takes inspiration or direction from an older philosophy doesn't mean it can't be intensely relevant and help us rethink the way we understand the world today. Montaigne already covered this stuff. True! That's why is extra relevant to take into account his work in our current cultural climate. You know, sometimes great intellectual, cultural, technological (etc., etc.) innovations are made by re-visioning older concepts. Here is one example of such innovation-via-ripping-off-older-ideas that even all the fogey-minded will appreciate: the Western European "Renaissance" (ripped off the Ottomans and Romans). Here's another example: the Romans (ripped off the Greeks). I don't see how insisting about a field of study that "well, it's totally not REALLY new, just a re-branding" has any relevance whatsoever to this conversation.

Ha! Touché.

The presumption that one can only ever think, theorize, write, or indeed experience the world from a uniquely human perspective is not a given truth, nor is it a universal phenomenon today. Moreover, it is a relatively new concept in the scheme of Western thought. Cf. Laurie Shannon's brilliant new book, which historicizes the concept of the "human" in utterly fascinating ways. (http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/A/bo14312671.html). I share the skepticism of certain commenters on this thread about some of the new philosophical and theoretical postures that are capturing the current collective scholarly imagination without, I think, good application or use (and, whatever our ideals of the humanities are, we MUST engage and demonstrate their use these days, because that's where we are as a culture at the moment; practice ideas for the sake of ideas at your own peril). However, casually dismissing certain methodologies and philosophies as "pointless" is both childish and lazy. If you think something is stupid, try to engage it. It will make your own arguments, methods, and theories that much stronger. It will help you be a better practitioner of your own work, and will also give you enough authority when you are dismantling those theories with which you disagree that people will take your criticisms seriously. Completely dismissing methodologies and theories before you know them well enough to back up that dismissal does nothing but expose a crass intellectual indolence.

SF State has a great reputation for placing its funded (English) MAs into strong PhD programs. I've encountered a number of stellar doctoral students at highly regarded programs in English or in English-adjacent fields like theater who did MAs there. ETA: As far as the long-term academic CV goes, I don't know. Though I can't imagine it would look bad on the academic job market as long as one does well in a great doctoral program.

Animal studies is blowing up.

I have.

This is a much more eloquent way of saying what I was trying to convey.

These are things I have learned about literary studies Ph.D. admissions, and I do believe they are accurate: Fit really does matter, though it is mysterious and difficult to gauge from the applicant's perspective, and it can mean a number of different things. GRE scores and grades will not get you in, but they can keep you out. Languages matter a lot more than you might think, especially for particular subfields; beware of applying to be a medievalist without Latin, for example, or applying as a transnational scholar without relevant languages. Letters of recommendation are very important, but not as important as the statement of purpose and writing sample. Your writing sample matters the most, followed closely by your statement of purpose (which is its own kind of writing sample). The scariest truth of all: your writing sample may be very good, but that doesn't mean it's good enough to earn you a spot in any given year. In fact, your application as a whole may be excellent, but whether or not it's excellent enough is a different story. That's why you have to aim to be the best while hoping to land at "good enough." Sincere apologies if this makes anyone sad. It can be a painful thing, I know.

This. Amanda Gailey is also doing some cool DH stuff there.

Largely it varies because of teaching or other service obligations, faculty support, exam schedule and requirements, language requirements, etc. Honestly, hardly anyone finishes a standard lit Ph.D. in four years.* I know of exactly one person who did, and he was...abnormal. Even finishing in five is extremely rare, whether or not one enters with an MA. Six years is the sweet spot. * Edited to add: a standard American lit Ph.D.