Phil Sparrow

YES. This.

It would be nice for programs to include information about why one is rejected in the letter, especially if one has paid $60-$125 and spent a great deal of time working on an application. But remember that the members of adcoms have also spent an incredible amount of time on top of their already jampacked schedules, and usually do not get paid anything extra for it. Plus, it is almost always the grad school that gets the application fee, not the adcom or even the department. So it would be more time and money out of the adcom's pocket, as it were, to spend time personalizing everyone's rejection letter. It is just not feasible, and it's not really fair to ask of the professors and department administrators doing the work. I sympathize and understand that it is totally frustrating not to know, however. I think it's also more polite (and more in line with general practices) to wait until the end of application season--until about April--to ask for feedback on an application. Hang in there, you guys! It's very, very early yet.

A lot of programs have policies like this so that they can have something to point to when they get 200 panicked applicants calling and emailing about their statuses. It's pretty normal to get email or phone acceptances (in addition to a letter, which would generally come later), with or without this kind of "official" policy.

I wasn't actually talking about humanities PhDs in the general workforce, but general humanities education (usually undergraduate). Of course, I'm not unaware of the realities of the job market within and without the context of academia. I'm a PhD student with a non-PhD partner. I hear all about how awful the job market is for me all day and come home to hear how awful the job market is for everyone else. However, the sweeping generalization that the humanities have "nothing else to offer" but "knowledge for its own sake" is what hit a nerve with me, because it seemed to condemn the whole of the humanities and humanities education, not just the niche of advanced humanities academics (that is, PhD students and holders)--who, yes, have all made the choice to fracture themselves from the general workforce and populace in a way that probably codes them as undesirable job candidates, at least as far as most employers would be concerned. And it should go without saying that I understand that most PhDs and PhD students have separated themselves off from the general workforce on purpose, because they want to do their own thing. That's what I have conscientiously done. I know I've chosen a narrow career path for myself by entering a PhD program. But it doesn't mean that my path, as an academic, defines that of anyone who studies the humanities at any level. I should have been more specific in my rant that I was not talking about PhDs. But please, all of you, don't contribute to this persistent and self-defeating fallacy that humanities educations, broadly speaking, are useless outside of themselves. What we humanities PhD students and PhDs do offer outside of our own kind is education to the younger generations, who can take the valuable skills they develop in our disciplines to the rest of the world. We need to make sure that our students know that the educations they are getting are valuable and worthwhile so that the people they go on to work with and influence understand it as well, and this starts with us acknowledging the wide-reaching value of what we do and the kinds of skills we cultivate.

Forgive me, for I don't want to attack you, but this is dead wrong. And this attitude is one of the reasons why the humanities have been dying. The humanities disciplines offer MUCH more than "knowledge…for its own sake" and engender in students many more useful and--dare I say it--profitable skills than they are given credit for. Yet, so many humanities scholars, students and teachers alike, seem perfectly content to lament a culture where knowledge and education are not valued as much as they should be without doing anything about it. I find the American culture of ignorance as troubling as the next scholar, but part of the problem is that we have allowed those ignorance-mongers to define the conversation for far too long and have, as a result, allowed our disciplines to die. The humanities provide an education that is incredibly useful many different kinds of disciplines, workplaces, and fields (up to and including business, science—though of course not the actual research and technical-skills-requiring parts, and new technologies). Humanists really need to learn to market themselves better both to employers and to the general public. Honestly, this kind of marketing is not hard to do—I did it once upon a time with my humanities major before I decided to go to grad school and managed to do fairly well in the business arena despite my total lack of know-how in that field. As with almost any job, 95% of it is learned as you go, and humanities backgrounds actually prepare a person better, in many ways, for that on-the-fly manner of acquiring skills than do the disciplines (such as business) that are directly related to those fields. It’s not only on the job market, however, though change begins at the micro level, and more employers being shown and told how great humanities students are as employees would help shape general public opinion. But we also need to be more vocal in the public arena about how valuable the humanities are. We need to learn to articulate our own value in comprehensible ways, and we need to DO it instead of moaning about how no one appreciates us. Of course no one appreciates us if we don’t make it clear in every way and space that we can that the humanities are good for our communities and profit margins alike. If we simply cry to each other about how crappy it is, that does nothing. Take back the conversation in the public sphere. Learn how to craft a compelling resume for the worlds of business and industry. And do not keep repeating the LIE that the humanities have nothing to offer but abstract, highbrow knowledge. While there is nothing wrong with knowledge for its own sake—lord knows I would love to see our country appreciate it more—we need to learn how to show all the other things we can do. Which is a LOT. We have just been told and taught by so many people that we cannot do anything but think. So, let’s THINK about ways to motherfucking fix it. Market, spin, and have results to show for it. Honestly—these things are what the humanities teach us to do in the first place. Let’s do it. Sorry, thestage. Didn't mean to sound like I was going after you specifically. I am just sick of these kinds of comments. What you say is not all wrong--the class issues and absurd emphasis on bottom-line results are real, significant problems. But so is the defeatist attitude that too many humanities students, teachers, and grads cultivate like gangbusters. Edit: Also, did not realize how long this was until I posted. Sorry! I've been lesson planning for hours, which always includes me having to justify why learning about literature is important to my students, so I'm a bit touchy and, apparently, long-winded at the moment.

Are you talking about Penn State? Penn is a different school entirely. Penn State's MA/PhD division (which is not really a division at all: incoming MA students are funded for 5-6 years because they are expected to continue with the PhD) is confusing, but once you get past that it is just as logical and non-crack-smokish as any other program. Which, depending on your viewpoint, may still appear less than fully logical.

Take time off!!!! It will make you a better PhD student. If you want to work abroad, go to Asia and teach English. Especially Korea. You can make bank there, which would allow you to fund volunteer work as well.

No prob, you guys! Congrats on the interviews! Forgot a very important one: 9) Be humble--with grad students as well as faculty. Seriously, don't try to one-up anyone. Academia is a small world, and word gets around. Don't be that person with the national reputation for arrogance before you even start your first year!

This is not specific to Emory: 1) Have talking points about your own project/interests prepared. 2) Read up on the most current work of the professors you can find, even if that means snippets on JSTOR (with or without an account) or GoogleBooks. 3) Have a LONG list of questions prepared in advance; it is okay to use notes while you meet with professors. 4) Take notes during your interviews--it will help keep things straight and make you look engaged. 5) Remember that academics are often weirdos, and don't take it personally if they are weird with you. 6) Don't get too drunk at dinners/events, but do enjoy yourself. 7) Prepare a list of questions. Cannot emphasize this enough. 8) Be professional in your dress, manners, and general demeanor.

Carolina has historically trickled admits out over the course of January, February, and March. So it's definitely (at least based on past patterns) an ain't-over-til-the-fat-lady-sings-type program. Courage, dear hearts! Stay frosty. And good luck!

First, this thread is about undergraduate universities, not K-12 schools. Second, I make a point not to divulge personal information to strangers online. Third, it's really none of your beeswax; and besides, my point stands whether or not I have personal experience with Southern public schooling. Let's just say I can speak with some degree of authority regarding the public school systems (primary, secondary, and tertiary) in one state in question. I will say that I currently live and study in a different region from the one in which I was educated from childhood through my BA. The public primary and secondary schools here are terrible. But I would never condemn the education in this entire region--especially at the university level--simply because this one particular district is awful for primary and secondary schools. That would not make any sense. Now back to our regularly scheduled programming! To answer the OP's original question: reputation of undergrad matters a little, for many of the reasons stated above. But it's honestly NOT that big of a deal. Your writing sample and SOP are--by far--the most important parts of your application, and while it can be easier to learn how to produce high-quality examples of these documents at some institutions than others, they far outweigh the name on your diploma. In my very-well-regarded program, we have students who represent a range of BA- (and some MA-) granting institutions. There is not much of a difference among us all once we start, though I have noticed that the students from SLACs tend to enter with a greater grasp of theory than those educated at larger public schools, though they tend to have a more narrow background in general literary history than the public kids, so these things balance out (of course, this observed correlation doesn't imply any kind of causation; we all could be one-offs here). Languages are another factor; in my observation, SLACs tend to emphasize foreign language study more (or make it harder to test out of language courses) than do big public Us, and languages can certainly be a deciding factor in applications. But just because certain schools, which more often (but not always) private and fancy, make it *easier* to acquire the skills necessary or favorable for graduate applicants, that doesn't mean that the name on your degree has all that much sway. If you can demonstrate that you have mastered the skills required (or show the potential to do so quickly), you're well on your way. Likewise, if you have an impressive name on your diploma, but haven't acquired those skills, you're unlikely to impress an adcom. In sum, I do not think "prestige" matters that much for admissions, and once we are all here, we are all--and I mean ALL--riddled with the same crippling anxiety. Really really really, don't stress about this. The important things are your SOP, writing sample, and fit, fit, and more fit.

EVERYONE feels like the dumbest person in his or her program. Those anecdotes don't mean a whole lot. Some student who did her undergrad at Harvard no doubt feels equally stupid all the time. That's the nature of graduate school. Also, WTF does the South have to do with this at all? Here are some southern public schools: UVa, UNC, Georgia Tech, William & Mary. It is absurd to assume that because "it's [in] the south" one's education is "alright" at best. Bless your heart if that's the kind of ignorant assumption you're set on making.

I'm sure you're already aware of this, but it may bear repeating for others who read this thread down the line. Do NOT apply to programs just to throw them into the mix. Fit is *hugely* important in admissions, and it will also save you from a miserable experience once you are in. That is to say, "because they had a late deadline" is not a good reason to apply to any program.

What lolopixie said. No one will care so long as you are serious and respectful of the professors and your fellow students (that is, avoid "pulling rank by age" or treating your colleagues like infants).

Not really... Some years ago when I was making the rounds at recruitment visits, at least, it was fairly midsize of the programs I was considering. Maybe they've cut their cohort size since then, but it still has twice the faculty of where I ended up (which is small for an R1 but not tiny either).

Historically, they are not very. Don't stress!

Really, don't mention them. It will look naive. I think it's pretty much assumed they are a big draw for everyone applying to Columbia, so there's no need to go out and say it directly.

Haha, love it. I was thinking the very same thing.

It costs money to design and update a website. A fair amount of money if you want it done well, professionally, and efficiently (i.e., not by the random admin who is googling HTML coding). Humanities departments all over are being gutted funding-wise. Hence, little money for website overhauls. Not that this helps, I realize. It's still annoying and frustrating.

It is better to wait until next year to apply. Take some time off. Seriously. I'm not trying to be snarky or flip here.

This doesn't actually answer your question about programs, but I will briefly note that after some time being out of vogue, "aesthetics" as a mode or avenue of inquiry is lately becoming fairly fashionable again, especially in the intersection of aesthetics and affect studies or theory.

Perhaps approach it as you would a conference paper. Just getting in that mind-set may help to whittle it down.

The way to avoid reiterating older arguments: research and read exhaustively, until you can be confident that your approach is original. That's what you'll be doing in grad school (and forever, if your goal is academics).

Very few successful applicants I know mentioned any theorists at all. Primary authors are perhaps more common to note, but not theorists. You are not expected to have pinned down your methodology before you even arrive! So long as you make clear you have a *relatively* strong focus (e.g., gender and sexuality, history of cognition) that is well-articulated, and so long as you do not plan to focus on a particular theorist/philosopher/school itself, there is really no need to mention particular theorists--which will, 90% of the time, come across as...shall we say, "academically immature."

Well, don't count your chickens before they're hatched. At least a couple of years ago, which is when I was last paying close attention to this (and which was, allegedly, one of the most competitive years for English PhD apps ever), Michigan and Princeton had surprisingly reasonable acceptance rates for such elite programs -- around 10%, if I recall correctly. Remember, it's all about fit!