ComeBackZinc

Oh, you couldn't possibly do a rhet comp focus at most Ivies. Dartmouth has a cool center for Writing and Rhetoric, but most (not all, but most) schools with prestige programs in lit range from uninterested to actively hostile towards comp/rhet/writing studies/etc. Generally speaking, rhet comp has traded forgoing a lot of prestige positions for (much) better hiring numbers overall. In part, this is just a numbers game, given how many lit PhDs programs churn out that they can't possibly place. In part, it's a reflection of the perception that rhet comp is more "practical"/pedagogical/whatever than lit, a viewpoint that you can see as a terrible betrayal of the humanities ideal or a pragmatic reflection of the political economy of the contemporary university or somewhere in between. The reality is that most rhet comp grads get jobs at teaching universities, and a majority of our graduates end up at teaching schools where they'll work 3/3 loads or similar. Not all, certainly; we've placed plenty of people at R1 universities, including places like Georgetown and Michigan State recently. But that's generally the deal. Which works for me fine-- I love to teach, that's why I got into this, and our program has a 100% effective TT placement rate. But you're just never going to be respected by a large number of people in English writ large, and you will never get a job at Harvard as a rhet comp person. But who cares?

Tough question to answer. Every time I try I worry that I have insulted somebody. One thing I like to say is that you need to worry about the history of a program, because rhet/comp programs tend to be quite small in terms of faculty and can, at times, just disappear. I remember that when I first started putting my application together my advisor was afraid that Ohio State might not have a program much longer, as they were facing some high-profile defections. But flash forward four years or so and they've still got a stellar program. You have to think about this stuff with programs that are so small. With the caveat that I will inevitably leave programs off that I shouldn't, I would name my own department, because of its history and pedigree, and particularly because of its extremely large network in the field, which certainly matters on the job market; Michigan State, for a dynamic and tech-heavy program; Michigan's joint program in English and education, particularly if you're into more pedagogy and quantitative research; Illinois-Urbana/Champaign; Texas at Austin; Penn State; Syracuse.... But there I go again. If I list as many as I'd like, I'll end up providing you with little useful information. I may just be too much of a booster for the field to be good at answering this question.

I will go against the grain and say that the perception that the prestige of your undergrad/MA institution doesn't matter much has always seemed like something people want to be true rather than something that is actually true. I think that students from less competitive universities can and do get into great programs all the time. But all else being equal, yes, it probably helps a good deal to have a BA from Yale rather than from Directional State U. (For what it's worth, my BA university was open enrollment.) You can only control what you can control, so don't sweat it if you don't have a degree from a big name school. But it's important to remember that even impressive academics can be seduced by big names on diplomas as well as anybody else. I would also like to add two factors that affect all manner of human competitive processes: random chance and patronage. In undergrad admissions, the field is now so competitive and the differences between applicants so small that many admit it's essentially random for a large percentage of applicants. (A former Harvard admissions officer admitted that 90% of Harvard's applicants are perfectly capable of excelling there and advocated going to a lottery system after a certain percentage is cut from the bottom.) Grad school apps aren't nearly as random. But the fact of the matter is, you can get unlucky or lucky, depending on a whole number of factors. Also, while it's uncomfortable and brings out a lot of controversy, patronage networks play a role in all kinds of competitive applications, and it would be foolish to think they don't factor into grad schools as well. It's not a matter of conspiracy or schools letting in undeserving candidates because of so-and-so's request. It's a matter of adcomms sorting between hundreds of perfectly deserving candidates and needing to make difficult decisions based on limited information. In that context, it is sensible, if a bit unfair, to take the advice of a friend who says a particular applicant is brilliant.

Perhaps, but then this is generally true of most programs in the humanities. They may not explicitly state this, and they may move money around in a way that obscures it, but in many, many cases, unfunded MA programs are there to fund the PhD students. Under no circumstances should you attend an unfunded PhD program, unless you happen to be very wealthy. I guess my question for you is this: why do you care if it's an "accomplishment"? If it's for the specific question you ask at the end, about whether it's a sign you'll get into a good funded program, I'm afraid I don't think you can do that kind of math. Plenty of people get into their #1 choice and get rejected from schools they perceive as much less elite. It happens all the time. If you think that applying to graduate programs now is a good use of your money, time, and effort, then you should do it, regardless of what a prior acceptance might mean. You should be happy you were invited to attend NYU's MA program, which I'm sure is highly competitive. And you should feel resolved to submit new apps if you're convinced that's the best way forward for you at this juncture. I'm just not sure the former can tell you much about the latter.

70%-30% sounds super fair to me. If it was 99%-1%, I'd say don't go. But you're totally justified in doing this.

Bear in mind that sometimes individual faculty go off script and notify someone before most acceptances come out. So one or two early-seeming notifications might not be bogus.

Nope, afraid not. Academia surely has the IP addresses, but typically websites keep that information very secret, and anyway they are easily faked.

Yeah, I would echo Swagato in saying that it's not the rankings as such that matter but rather the relative prestige that they clumsily approximate that matters. Going to #7 is in no way guaranteed to put you in a worse position than going to #4, and the people who generate these lists might not have a clue as to whether #7 is really behind #4 at all. But going to a prestigious department makes a huge difference on the job market.

If he's a lecturer, he almost certainly is not eligible to serve on a diss committee.

Yes.

If you could take a class with a well-respected professor who could write you a letter of rec, it could certainly help. Of course, part of what becoming a well-respected prof means is that you usually don't teach the kind of courses people can just sign up for. Applying for awards or programs or submitting publications to undergraduate journals could be a benefit as well. I think you should really consider a gap year more for yourself than for your applications, personally. Take the year to explore more interests and have fun.

I don't know who put that degree forth; I know I didn't. I'm sorry if I offended you. I think everyone should consider whether this really the best options for them. I say that not out of a desire to insult, but just the opposite. Out of respect.

I mean, I said "most of the people who post here do so out of a desire to one day get a job as a professor in English, and the vast majority never will." That's about as neutral language as I'm capable of, and it's just true. So I think the problem is not my tone but the sadness and ugliness of that fact.

I'm not interested in what you think my job is. The fact that you are well aware of the market is not an argument that everyone who is considering grad school in English is aware of the market. This is forum for people to discuss grad student admissions, and this thread concerns professional realities. And there are tons and tons of blog posts and essays out there by people who went to grad school and failed to get a job and now insist that they didn't know the state of the market. I think it's fair and appropriate for people like me to present the facts in order to save future people that pain. As far as my tone and disposition, I don't think there's anything remotely inappropriate about it; I think, instead, the reality that I'm pointing out is hurtful. Because it sucks. If it were up to me, everyone would get a job. But I'll risk temporarily and minimally annoying a couple people to potentially inform others who aren't as aware as you are. Because what you'll find once you're actually inside the institution is that the reality is so bleak. I'm sorry if bringing that up is hurtful.

Who's jumping to any conclusions? I'm simply relaying facts: it is a statistical certainty that the large majority of people who post here won't get tenure track jobs as professors. I certainly have a chance of being among them. I'm not telling anyone what to do; you're all adults who can make your own choices. But people here have to go into this process understanding that the odds are very, very long that they'll ever get a job as a professor. I'm willing for people to accuse me of being an asshole to make the truth a little more plain. And Rebecca Schuman, who I have plenty of disagreements with, is just relaying a simple reality: tons and tons of people graduate from PhD programs in the humanities every year and then are devastated when they don't get a job. And a lot of them complain afterwards that they didn't really understand the market, or that no one told them, or that they didn't realize how bad it was. That's not just people at mid-tier schools but at some of the most elite programs in the world. (That's particularly true since, as bad as it was prior to 2008, it got way worse then.) All I'm trying to do is to spare people that surprise. If you still want to go, then go. I am, after all. Just please don't be the ones to say "I didn't know." Be informed. Go in with a clear picture of what's out there. And don't shoot the messenger; I didn't create these conditions. I'm just trying to be honest about them.

There's actually plenty of jobs which call for a generic master's degree, which you can get with an MA in English. There's far fewer with an explicit desire for an MA in English. Of course, it also matters what you study. If you're studying technical communication or business writing, you'll likely have a better job than if you're a Medievalist. That's not in any sense a knock on Medievalists or anyone else. Just acknowledging that you don't generally get that kind of degree for job prospects anyway. incidentally, since we're talking about employment here, it's necessary that I make the essential point yet again: most of the people who post here do so out of a desire to one day get a job as a professor in English, and the vast majority never will. So consider getting out now.

I got an acceptance in April.

Some programs will actually be able to provide lists of actual placements-- individual students who got specific jobs in the past X number of years. Usually it's more informal. And, yes, subject to manipulation.

Far less likely to end up a miserable, unemployable wreck.

Investigate hiring rates. That's likely what you actually care about, and an honest program will provide them. They can be of limited value because different programs calculate them differently, but they are still worth looking for.

Both are very strong programs. They are quite different in their focus. Technically, Illinois's program is a PhD in English with a concentration in Writing Studies. Michigan State's program is the Writing, Rhetoric, and American Cultures program, which has no institutional affiliation with the English department. That can be good or bad depending on your point of view. Both programs are excellent, though.

you guys... it's SO EARLY. SO SO EARLY.

Including one of my brilliant peers!

(congrats!)

This can be a very controversial topic, at least as far as whether this is useful for your application or not. If you search around here I'm sure you'll find multiple perspectives. Since you've framed it in terms of getting more info: sure. Send a respectful email, identify yourself as a potential applicant, and ask the relevant questions that occur to you. Just make sure the professor is the best resource. Don't ask an individual prof to give you information that would be accessible via the website, the DGS, or the graduate assistant for that department.