Phil Sparrow

There is great advice here already--I'd second everything Emelye wrote in particular. While looking for conferences at which to present or trying to scrounge for (probably ill-advised) undergraduate publications may seem useful, your efforts will be MUCH better spent working through your own interests, honing your research skills, and trying to develop as a scholar. I'd definitely take advantage of any thesis-writing opportunities you have. If there is no honors thesis program at your school, try to organize an independent study for which you can write a big research paper. Working on a thesis will also bring you closer with at least one faculty member. Here's my advice (this is not in any particular order): * Develop close relationships with faculty members, particularly in whatever subfield(s) interest you most. Go to their office hours, take their classes (especially small seminars), ask if you can set up independent studies, etc. Keep in touch when you're not working directly with them! * Talk candidly about your grad school plans with faculty members you trust. Find out what THEY advise you to do--they'll probably know better than we on the GradCafe. * Even if theory doesn't interest you, familiarize yourself with the major trends in literary theory; take at least one class. * Focus your interests into a particular area or two of study (i.e., Restoration, poetics); see if you like it. * Work on a thesis or major research project. Use that time to develop relationships with faculty, improve your research skills and writing, familiarize yourself with current scholarship in your field, and--perhaps most importantly--figure out if you really want to spend the rest of your life hidden away in a corner of the library researching and writing on a topic that no one but you cares about. Academia is exceptionally tough for a number of reasons, and something you should be 100% sure you want to dive into. * Languages! Take these two years to improve your skills in languages you already know, and try to develop a basic grasp of at least one other that will be relevant to something you want to study (French and Latin are always great choices for almost any area of focus, because they are major languages of historically important criticism and philosophy). * Take time off after you graduate. Really. Of course this advice is not universal, but I'd say 99% of people would benefit from taking time off, even if they already know for sure they want to go to grad school. Quite honestly, having some time to step away from institutionalized education can make you a much better student when you step back into the classroom. And it helps you be a sane, normal adult when you're in the throes of a grad school meltdown. Which you will have. Often. To paraphrase Francis Bacon, it is important to temper your studies with experience. (Also, you won't have to worry about going through the hellish application process while also trying to juggle school, thesis, enjoying your last year of college, etc.)

Are you applying for English/comp lit/a national language, or some kind of East Asian studies program? Because, as I'm sure you know, it's not about the institution itself, but the program. So even if you get answers of "good" or "bad," those judgments may not apply to the program that interests you. We may be able to provide you with better answers if you're more specific about the program that you're aiming for.

Well, this might be a dumb question...but did you study or take any pratice tests? The GRE tests you first and foremost on test-taking strategy, not actual knowledge.

You sound a lot like I did when I was applying! I don't have the time to respond thoroughly here now, but I'd definitely second UVa for your interests. It's similar in department philosophy and general approach to Carolina's program, so you'd probsbly feel pretty well at home. I'd caution against anywhere that feels *too* comfortable--but I need to run, so there will have to be more on that later! UVa's definitely somewhere to look, though.

You sound a lot like I did when I was applying! I don't have the time to respond thoroughly here now, but I'd definitely second UVa for your interests. It's similar in department philosophy and general approach to Carolina's program, so you'd pr

Let your spiders roam free. They will eat other insects!

Yes and no, depending on the program. Almost always no for medievalists. Medieval study, by its nature, is extremely interdisciplinary (and comp lit-y, given the language work everyone has to do). Medievalists are their own special creatures, and often work in wildly different ways than their fellow scholars/students in different areas of focus. The average medievalist with a PhD in English will do much more interdisciplinary and comparative language work than would, say, the average Victorianist with a PhD in English. This isn't always true, but to be a good medievalist you have to be a good historian and polyglot as you are an English scholar. If you're interested in Old Castillian and want to make that your primary focus, you might want to apply to Spanish departments. Comp lit departments, in my experience, are really theory-heavy and less focused on (or bound to) historical periods than national language departments are. So if you want the serious theory stuff along with your medieval work, comp lit might be good for you. But traditional national departments, including English, will also probably work. Even if your home department is, say, English, you could definitely work with people in other departments (like Spanish), have them sit on your diss committee, and so forth. Caveat: I'm not really a medievalist, in that it's not my primary area of interest, but you might call me a "part-time medievalist." I crossover a fair bit. Any real medievalists out there, please feel free to correct this post if I'm wrong. Also, my apologies to all if I've misrepresented comp lit in any way. I'm only speaking from my own experiences at my institution and from visiting at others.

Well, I'm no expert on the UC budget situation, so I'll just say what I think I know. You'd do well to be wary of public CA universities, but don't fully write them off, especially UCLA and Cal. Just do your homework/research about them and ask lots of questions. This isn't two years ago, and I've been hearing less about the UC financial crisis lately (though that could always be because I stopped listening as closely). Re: stipend/fellowship withdrawal. That is shocking. Are you sure your friend's friends weren't just nominated for, rather than awarded, a fellowship that didn't come to pass? That's fairly common, to have the department say something like, "Hey, we've nominated you for a grad school-wide fellowship!" and then not to receive it. A nomination is never guaranteed. Sometimes, too, numbers can change. Last year when I was accepted to a UC school, they guaranteed me five years of funding, but couldn't guarantee how much I would be getting--they could only give me an estimation, and subject to change. But they were up front about it. If your friend's friends actually had a firm *offer* that was withdrawn...well, that's a different story and it is Not Good.

Do bear in mind that there is a difference between programs that emphasize teaching and pedagogical training and ones that just make you teach a lot (which some refer to as graduate student "exploitation," though I'm not familiar enough with those programs to say if that's an accurate characterization or not). You will want time to do you own research and develop your own projects. Even if the projects you want to work on are teaching-oriented, you'll need time away from teaching, sometimes, to work on them. So I would caution against just looking at programs where the grad students are required to teach a lot, and recommend you focus on those that emphasize pedagogy and teacher training. Yes, many of the top private schools (Princeton, NYU, for example) require very little teaching and put little emphasis on pedagogical training. But others (along with some public schools) emphasize pedagogy though they do not require you to teach as much as, say, the UC schools or CUNY do. My program is great for that; everyone gets at least two years of teaching-free fellowship, so we teach less than do grad students at other programs. But, there is still a strong focus on pedagogy and training, and we still get a good deal of experience in a variety of classrooms (not just all comp, all the time, or whatever) and plenty of time to develop a competitive teaching portfolio. I think that this kind of program, instead of or in addition to ones where you're forced to teach huge loads all the time, is worth researching if you want a teaching focus in your PhD.

Carolina and UVa for sure (UVa has amazing Faulkner resources/archives in the special collections); Ole Miss. I know there are lots more in the South but those are the only ones I'm sure about. Outside the South...WUSTL, maybe? Just because I know they're strong in American studies and particularly African American studies (and there often tends to be overlap with Southern studies in particular areas of focus within AfAm lit). Not as sure about WUSTL, but I know that UNC, UVa, and Ole Miss are great.

It really doesn't matter if you want to study written literature or other media. If you're doing comp lit, you must have a strong reading knowledge of your languages for a number of reasons, not least the following: 1) it's what the department requires and you can't break the rules until you master them; 2) even if you're studying visual rather than written media, you will need to read criticism in languages other than English, and this is usually more difficult and requires a higher level of reading comprehension than does reading literature; 3) *especially* if you are interested in continental philosophy, you will need to be able to read the texts in the original (if you want to study aesthetics, for example, you should be able--eventually, at least--to read Kant in German). Finally (and I'm sorry if this sounds pissy, but...oh well), there have been two recent posts here from prospective applicants who want to study theory/philosophy but don't want to learn Latin or Greek. You all need to get over your fears of dead languages. If you really want to study, say, Derrida or Lacan or Badiou or whatever theory guy, you would do yourself well to learn an ancient language eventually (not necessarily before applying), so you can read and understand the ancient texts they refer to. Think of how often philosophers and theorists (particularly those who take on aesthetics) engage with, say, Aristotle. How often they refer to Greek words using the Cyrillic alphabet rather than transliterating Into the Roman alphabet. If you really want to study theory and philosophy for a living, don't dismiss ancient languages so easily. Again, I'm not saying you have to be proficient in those languages before applying, but don't be scared of programs that will require them of students. There is a reason why Harvard comp lit insists you learn them. Caveat: I'm not in comp lit, but I do a lot of language work. It sucks! But it's really useful.

Tybalt is right; you will feel overwhelmed. But you figure it out! You also may feel jealous of or intimidated by the first years coming in with MAs, because they already know how to be in grad school. The most important thing is to work on your own stuff. Try not to compare yourself to other students, just work on being as good a grad student as *you* can be. To answer your question: generally speaking, going from a BA to a PhD in English is really common, though some programs take more MAs than others and it might not be common at your program. I went in without an MA and so did the vast majority of the people in my program. I feel glad that I went straight in, though sometimes I envy those who entered the PhD with more experience because they seem so much more confident. But there are advantages to entering fresh, too. Just work on *your* stuff. It will pay off even if it doesn't feel like it at first.

It really depends on the program. However, two programs that I can think of with terminal MAs and PhDs* very rarely--if ever--admit their own terminal MA students to the PhD. I'm sure there are programs out there where terminal MAs have an advantage over external PhD applicants, but I'm not familiar enough with any to speak about them. * I'm thinking Northwestern and UVa, which both have separate terminal MAs as well as PhD programs, as opposed to the MA-to-PhD single-track system a la Penn State and UNC. Often people speak of the MA at Penn State (and other programs like it) as if it is a terminal degree because you apply to the MA rather than the PhD if you don't already have a masters, but it's not a terminal program; the expectation is that an MA student is there for a PhD, which is why they offer admits funding for the duration of the PhD. More importantly, it means that MA applications are looked at--and are as competitive--as PhD apps. I assume what you're asking about here are terminal MA programs, yes?

I know this was directed to someone else, but...I don't even understand the question. I mean I guess the government/Peace Corps itself "lets" you do it, in that they have to accept you. (I REALLY hope I don't sound like a jerk in what I'm about to say, but I might and I apologize in advance.) The first step to figuring out what you want to do with your life might be self-actualizing and determining your own (adult) course of action, rather than waiting for someone (parents, whomever) to "let" you pursue what excites you.

Do also remember that "what you want to do with your life" does not automatically translate to "what you do for living." If it does (and you want it to), great! I'm doing that! But you don't *have* to define yourself and your aspirations by your "day job."

Sometimes tickets are free! At my undergrad (member of a major conference), tickets were free for all students, grad and undergrad alike. At my current grad program (also in a major conference), undergrads get free sports tickets but grads have to pay, though at discounted prices. I must say, however, that as much as it pains me, I haven't had time to attend any sporting events since I started grad school. Perhaps things will be different when I'm finished with coursework.

It's a questionable but occasionally justified move to pay for an English MA, but paying for an English PhD is, in my opinion, unjustifiable. The one exception might be the odd very strong program that asks you to pay for the first year with guaranteed funding thereafter, as--if I remember correctly--Wisconsin-Madison sometimes does. And even that might be a tough call. But Wisconsin is a great program, and *potentially* worth paying for a year. I don't know much about ASU. How is their placement record in your field? Is funding guaranteed after the first year? It may be beneficial to see if you can defer one of these programs and reapply next year. That way you can give it another shot and still have a viable back-up. (This is my shot in the dark. Please, y'all, let me know if this sounds way off base.)

I absolutely would counsel against an online MA. Whether it's fair or not, I cannot imagine many faculty members/adcoms taking an online graduate degree very seriously, and suspect most would dismiss a PhD application with such a degree pretty swiftly.

The language issue very much depends on the program. Some of them (like UC Irvine, if I remember correctly) really prize pre-matriculation/application language skills. Others not so much. I began studying a language very important to my area during the application year, taking two semesters of classes at a local college, and 4 out of 5 programs where I was accepted mentioned that as a positive factor when I was admitted (and these are not programs that have a reputation for emphasizing language skills pre-admission). Basically, unless you do poorly in your language classes and it shows up on your transcript, language study can only ever help. As far as the medieval thing goes, the rules ARE different, and you almost certainly will need to come in with strong skills in Latin upon admission. Other languages (ie, French, Old French, Old English, etc.) will be helpful, depending on your focus, but decent Latin is a MUST for most strong programs. Most of the medievalists I knew went out of their way to include some self-translated Latin in their writing samples to show off their skills in the application. This is not to say that an adcom will expect your Latin to be perfect; as I understand it, the medievalist community as a whole is moving away from the old school hardcore focus on languages. But I wouldn't gamble on that if I were you. If your Latin isn't decent and you are a medievalist, make that your priority.

Poco_puffs is right on. There will be a grand variety of dress wherever you go, but the most important thing is comfort. Especially shoes!! Prospective visits are almost universally LONG and exhausting and involve a lot of walking, so look presentable but do make yourself comfortable. If you are worried that comfort means slumming it, accessorize. Details can dress up almost any outfit. As for other tips... Be respectful. Don't try to one-up the students (or the faculty, as I've seen a couple jerks try to do!). Come prepared. Read up on your potential advisors' recent work. You will not be quizzed (usually, that is--I had a hilarious weird experience with a drunk emeritus at one program) but it will probably make you feel more confident. Also, come with a list of generic and specific questions, and don't be afraid to take a lot of notes. Finally for now, many programs will ply you with booze. Get super wasted at your own risk.

I feel bad saying this because I do know people who have gone through the Chicago MAPH and had great experiences. But, the faculty that I've encountered at my current program and others whom I've spoken to (not to mention my undergraduate advisors, who strongly discouraged me from applying when I brought it up as a potential MA app option) don't have great things to say about it and generally don't seem to respect it as a program very much. Even if a reputation is unfair, perception can mean a lot, and if adcoms perceive your MA program as sort of a consolation prize/cash cow that has lower admissions standards and accepts too many people just to get their money (which is how I've heard the MAPH described by faculty), that's not insignificant. Please note that I don't know enough about the MAPH personally to gauge if this is an accurate characterization or totally unfair--it certainly might be the latter--but it's how an awful lot of faculty from several programs have described it to me, and they're the ones deciding on PhD applications. That said, I've met several students who have done the MA at UVA and have gone onto be really, really successful in PhD applications. I've heard little about this program specifically from faculty--frankly, it doesn't come up often in idle conversation, as the MAPH sometimes does--but at least I've never heard anything negative. Re: Chicago vs. Charlottesville. By all accounts the MAPH is SO rigorous that you may not have much time to enjoy Chicago's great cultural and urban offerings anyway. And while you may be less "anonymous" in the large town/small city of Charlottesville, at Chicago you'd be in Hyde Park, which is not the greatest area, and you may not have much time to get out and about elsewhere. By the way, sorry for the brand new profile. I was an active member of GradCafe under a different name but have recently switched usernames due to privacy issues.