circumfession

Apologies for inserting a semi-serious comment into a wonderfully comic thread, but this is ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE for English PhD programs. My partner attends a top-5 English PhD program. Less than 10% of his first year cohort has been published. In fact, many of the second-years in his cohort have yet to publish. NO ONE in my cohort has a publication either and I'm no longer a first year. I won't get into the complicated reasons for this, but many (possibly a majority? hard to say) English academics seem to believe that it's better to publish late (say, as a 4th or 5th year) than to publish badly...either in a less-than-prestigious journal, or simply submit a piece that's considerably weaker than your potential. While not everyone subscribes to this philosophy, most of my advisers have recommended that I should aim for top journals and exercise a bit of patience, rather than pushing my work out there too early. Certainly, I know of professors in R1, tenure-track jobs (or comparable lib arts TT jobs) who lacked publications when they were hired. One should aim, I think, for publication-quality writing (and the level thinking, research, sophistication that goes with it) when one puts together the writing sample...but that's a goal rather than a necessary accomplishment--almost all first year PhD's, even at top schools, have substantial weakness--and by no means suggest that every PhD applicant needs to be published. It's the cherry on the sundae. (And as I alluded to earlier, if you sacrifice quality for a publication now--if such a trade-off is necessary, it can come back to bite you when you enter the job market later on. The jury is still out on this one). I hope that this is reassuring.

You've received a lot of good advice, so I'll throw out a different possibility. Do you have a good friend (in your program/classes) who knows your work well, and can speak to it? When one of my professors asked me to write my own LoR two years ago, I froze up. I can't really talk about myself well. Instead, I went to a friend (my partner, actually, who is currently a graduate student in my field and knows my work very well) and asked him to write an LoR for me. It took him about 3 hours to write it. Prior to that, I had writer's block over the task for 3 weeks. I used his description as a template for my own, qualifying or adding things as I deemed fit.

I should have specified: my comments pertain (as far as I know) only to English. I have no idea how things work in other fields. And as others have noted, it's a slightly different ball game for applicants without an English B.A., or who obtained their BA outside the U.S. The MA seems to be the norm for those folks.

To both agree with and complicate Pamphilla's comments, the general bias in English academia against the MA tends to be a self-perpetuating cycle. Because most MA programs are unfunded, few stellar students who'd have a good shot at a Ph.D program will go for an MA first. Hence, most of the top students go straight into Ph.D programs, and the MA programs tend to fill up with students (who might be very talented) who aren't quite ready for a Ph.D program without additional training. The MA frequently becomes a place to "play catch-up" to the to BA students, particularly for candidates who didn't do research/receive stellar research training during their undergraduate. Consequently, I think there's a certain stigma attached to a candidate in the US who is pursuing an MA in English: the assumption (warranted or not) is that the person couldn't or didn't get into a Ph.D program to begin with. To some degree, for some students, this is absolutely true. While the MA is THE place to play catch-up, many students...well...never quite catch-up. Despite their far greater exposure to graduate studies, their field, research methodology, etc...the work that they produce is nowhere as strong as that produced by some of their BA peers. While there is a slightly higher bar for MA candidates, I think that difference is over-emphasized. Most of the strong BA students at the top universities are indistinguishable from their MA counterparts. This attitude certainly varies from program to program even within the same field. My sense of it is undoubtedly biased by the 2-3 programs that I have in mind (all ranked within the top 20, some considerably higher), which tend to accept a large number of students with MA's.

This. Precisely. Strangely enough, I'm an English graduate student--and hence, the sort that would TEACH writing 101 classes. While it's true that we have to drill into our (fresh-out-of-high-school) students' heads the basic grammatical guidelines (which includes avoiding the passive), it's a rule of thumb that we--as scholars--frequently break. When I'm grading papers, I only flag passive construction when it sounds awkward, or get in the way of conveying the author's claims. Pamphilia described the justifications for this construction well: the passive voice creates a certain effect (it hides or de-emphasizes agency, among other things) which can be extremely useful when used sparingly and deliberately. Used in the right context, it can convey a certain sense of humbleness (which isn't to be confused for the lack of confidence) that can be potently disarming. For those of us who are obsessed about how the statement "reads," it also helps to break up monotony by letting us vary the sentence structure without significantly changing the meaning. I won't go into the debate on philosophical superiority (superior for what? in what context? what is the localized goal?), but in my field, the ad-comms are hyperaware of blatant rhetorical posturing. Trying to *sound* confident by avoiding the passive voice, or avoiding all qualifications ("I would like to...I hope..." etc) makes the writer seem overly arrogant. I'm not suggesting that *every* ad-comm in every discipline would pick up or view this approach negatively, but I'm fairly sure that it wouldn't work well for anyone applying to English or a closely related discipline. You'd want the confidence to "come through" in the substance of what you say, not compensated for via the style. I think an understated rhetorical style, backed by a statement that focuses on the research not only more closely mirrors (good) academic writing for my field, but also makes for a far more effective SoP. The secret to writing an SoP, if there is any, is to convey your interests in a way that infects your readers with a sense of your excitement, by showing them *why* your work is so cool and relevant. The most effective statements that I've seen (again, for my field) focuses on the work, not on the writer...yet, in the process of conveying that info, also gives a glimpse of the writer's personality. That "peripheral" view of the author, in a statement that's focused on the research, tends to best negotiate the balance between lending personality to the statement while getting the job done.

Although I also majored in philosophy, I went into a different field for graduate school, so take my advice with a grain of salt. While one might get away with turning in two 10-pagers instead of a 15-20 page paper, I don't think that a 6-8 page paper has the room to develop your ideas sufficiency to convey the level of sophistication that's ideal for a writing sample. Would it be possible to expend one of these papers?

pm me, and I'd be happy to take a look. For English applications, I suspect that the word count is flexible. I was accepted into several (English Ph.D) programs that required 500 words...despite submitting an 800 word SoP. In fact, except for programs that forced me to enter the SoP into a box (and cut off at 1000 words), my SoP was over the word count by at least 100 words at each program. I did well enough. English is one of those disciplines where bending the rules isn't unacceptable, especially if you have good reason to do so. Come to think of it, unlike other disciplines, the general ethos in ours encourages us to break rules--but only if we know what we're doing. So as long as you're sure that the statement won't benefit from an additional trimming, leave the 167 words in.

http://community.livejournal.com/lit_cohort_07/7706.html My sense is that while Duke Lit traditionally has a stronger reputation (especially for theory), Duke English is a very strong program in its own right. They both place pretty well. Lit might be better if your interests tend to focus around theoretical questions, which span several traditional "fields." Then again, I applied (as was accepted) into Duke English, whereas in hindsight, my eccentric approach might have been better suited to Duke Lit.

I'm not sure that this information was entirely accurate. I was admitted into Buffalo's PhD program 2 years ago, and had a good look at their numbers. I'm not sure that fairness/accuracy has much to do with the application process. (That's a jab at the insanity of admissions in general, not at your comment regarding Buffalo. The very best and the very worst students tend to fare as expected, but many students in "between," with quirky interests and/or weak spots tend to face a far more aleatory process). The number of applications from 2 years ago was 180, which seems pretty "accurate" compared with similar numbers at similar programs (ranking-wise, also interest-wise). As for how students are treated, this will vary widely depending on who you speak with. My partner completed an unfunded MA at Buffalo, and used his education there as a springboard into a top 5 Ph.D program. All of his close friends among his MA cohort landed good (funded) offers, including another student who ended up at a top 10 program. Sure, he had to prove himself during his time as an MA, and went out of his way to attend meetings, go to readings, etc, etc, but that's a part of graduate school life in general. There were certainly MA students who treated themselves as second-class citizens, but it is almost a choice (out of fear, perhaps?) on their part, rather than they receive this treatment from the program. Many of the MA students, for example, choose to NOT sit at the table, and rarely--if ever--spoke up in class discussion. But the very fact that they do take classes with the PhD students, and have access to the same professors already (to me) suggests that they are given the opportunity to level the playing field. Most, to put it bluntly, can't or did not take advantage of it. That's understandable (for obvious reasons, most MA students know a bit less going into the program than their PhD counterparts), but doesn't merit the sort of complaints that I think you're suggesting. This isn't to say that Buffalo doesn't have its problems: as a SUNY school, it is facing drastic funding cuts (like the UC's). In the past year (since my partner left), the program accepted a far smaller PhD cohort and a far larger MA cohort, and this may affect the quality of class discussions/camaderie. I have no idea if it actually does: it's pure speculation on my part. There is some dissent within the program (which is hardly unique: most programs have some internal fractions). Buffalo's job record can be problematic: the legendary freedom to do what you want is quite accurate, but unless you force yourself to make some pragmatic moves (picking fields that can be legible to a job committee, learning your languages, etc), you can end up being unhireable...but that's a choice that's largely in your hands, as a graduate student. All those are issues that might be best assessed during your (admitted student) visit, so if I were you, I wouldn't let that stop me from applying anyway. It definitely is one of the best places to study cultural studies/theory. I'd also add to this list: UI-Chicago UC-Irvine (you might also want to look into Irvine's cultural and theory program, though you'll need a pretty strong theory background to be competitive) Oregon? (many cultural studies student seem to have this on their list, but I don't know its reputation) UT-Austin WUSTL CUNY Duke (Lit or English)

bespectacled: I'm speculating here, though with the benefit of some experience. I think that the desireability of a very specific SoP is less so that the program will know EXACTLY what you want to study (half of grad students tend to change their mind anyway, as you noted), but rather that the program wants to know that you can show commanding knowledge of one field, consider the current conversations, and demonstrate a proposal that outlines your own contributions. Even if you change your mind, they want to know that you're capable of basically writing that prospectus, passing orals, and cranking out a 200-300 page dissertation within 5 years, get hired, and do your alma mater proud. It isn't so much the EXACT field, but your ability to situate yourself within one that really matters. That's part of why I don't advocate switching for the sake of entering an "easier" field...unless you can truly posit yourself as a semi-expect (even though we know all--ad-comms included--that this is largely posturing) and write a strong sample to match. Some can...but they tend to be few and far in between. As for whether or not programs do have rigid slots...as I've tried to stress, this varies drastically from program to program, not to mention year by year as ad-com committees change, even at the same program. In short, I think several do. It might vary by a student or two, but they do try to "spread around the goods." And while students do change, changes go both ways, usually influenced by the program's particular strengths and weakness (and students whose interest change too much might leave)...so the numbers end up more-or-less working out in the end. There are also numerous political issues that you have no control over (in part depending on whose on ad-comm, what sorts of horse-trading has occurred in past years, who pissed off whom) that influence flexibility as well as the composition of the "slots."

I tend to be wary of one-hit wonders. Every few years, there's always an outstanding student or two who came from a less-than-stellar program (BA or MA), only to get into every top-notch school that he/she applies to. Having met a handful of those students myself, it seems that they did well *despite* their background, rather than because of it. It's their experiences outside the classroom--in the library, pursuing solo projects--that earned them the acceptances. I have an enormous amount of respect (awe, really) for these programs, but I do wonder how much of it can be attributed to their formal--as opposed to informal--training. Re: theory. I'm afraid that my answer will take a mystical turn. In my most recent round of applications, I was not a BA student, so I was accustomed to a considerably higher bar. To be honest, I'm not sure exactly WHERE the bar is at for someone with a BA. Close reading + theoretical application served me reasonably well the first time, though that's hardly "ideal" and I still wince at my original writing sample. It's a good way to showcase undergraduate skills--after all, this is what you learn (or what one should have learned) as an undergrad. But ultimately, that's not necessarily a very productive way of approaching literature, though it is an important pedagogical tool. I suppose it depends what programs you're aiming for. My hunch--and one that bears out when I consider my most successful colleagues' respective writing samples--is that the most competitive applicants, with an MA or a BA, are able to subtly weave other several approaches with their own comprehensive take, while offering an original consideration of a multivalent issue. They've fully digested the theor(ies) that they're using, but offer something more subtle and individualistic than a "x theoretical reading of y text." It's not to say that the best writing samples are publishable (there's plenty of crappy publications that no one should emulate) and publication requires a slightly different, far better researched approach, but the sophistication of the best writing samples does approach that bar. It was charles who offered you that insight about untenured professors, but I'll take a crack at your question: if your professor know you well, go for it! Tenure certainly helps (it's never to be underestimated), but the subtle and powerful personal allies, name recognition, etc in academia can be just as important (hence, partially why students from top-flight undergrads have an advantage). If you know that of professors that ARE famous in your field, it would behoove you to take classes with them (if you can) and solicit their recommendation. That said, it's ALWAYS a good idea to go with a professor that knows you well, tenured or not. (non-tenure-track is a different story. I wouldn't recommend asking a lecturer for an LoR, unless it is truly your last resort. There is a pecking order in academia).

I think you've named almost every period. While this is a common dilemma, you really do have the make the decision yourself, and I'm not sure that asking us what we think would be at all helpful. Perhaps some better questions might be: 1. What period have you had the most training/background/previous work in? If you lack strong language preparation, for example, you might want to re-think applying as a medievalist. 2. What period is your writing sample in? What about the bulk of your recommenders? 3. What QUESTIONS are you interested in pursuing? What methodological approaches? Certain periods might suggest themselves if you can narrow down the issues/methods that most interest you. My apologies if my speculations are incorrect: however, if you're trying to figure out which period would be EASIER to apply for....well, that's a far more muddled question, and will vary from program to program. (Some programs take their top X number of applicants, regardless of period. Other have rigid slots for certain field, while still others might have an over-saturation of a certain field and not accept any applicants for that field that year). Unless you know the application process from the inside at each of your schools, this is a dangerous guessing game. While it is generally true that the earlier fields are easier to enter, I'd qualify this by suggesting that one should go where one is best suited. I'd hazard a guess that ANY program (even one with rigid field slots) would be more likely to accept a strong modernist than a so-so medievalist.

This doesn't pertain to the original question, but I wanted to throw this out there. Since both of you seem interested (to some degree) in theory, be very careful about how you frame that interest and how it plays out in your writing sample. Nearly every professor (particularly those tenured within the last two decades) have something of a theoretical background, but in some programs (even theoretically-oriented ones), there is a backlash against a certain, heavy-handed use of theory. You might want to avoid, for example, a straightforward "deconstructive/feminist/postcolonialists/whatnot reading of X text." While that was popular in the 1980's (and not uncommon among my undergraduates even now), it's ultimately not a very convincing or sophisticated way of approaching literature. I say this, largely because I made that mistake during my applications, and I'm sure that it cost me some acceptances. Good luck to both of you.

I know that you meant this as a rhetorical gesture, but Berkeley has not (at least not in my knowledge, in these past few years) taken a student who completed the MA at a CSU...though other UC English programs have. Do what's best for you. Your primary obligation is to your own work. While there's a lot to be said for loyalty and congeniality (you'd be committing career suicide otherwise), it does sound as though you really should shop around. At least you have the consolation of knowing that you'll get into an MA program this year, regardless of what happens with the rest of your apps.

He does think that it's worth it...but I'm not sure that this is the right moment to ask. Had I dared pose that question to him in February, when we were still waiting for results, I think you might have obtained a more useful answer. Strangely enough, until this year, I've found that I learned far more from doing independent research (even when I received no credit, and without any official guidance) than in my classrooms. Although it's always idea to have the guidance of a class or at least a professor, you can always simply roll up your sleeve, pick a topic that interests you, and dive into the research. Many of the best scholars that I know of are largely self-taught, and came from less prestigious colleges.

rainy_day offered some very good advice, so I will build onto it with some ancetodal evidence. The MA-before-Ph.D can be well worth it, but only to the right students at the right programs. I've told this story before, but I think it bears rehashing. My partner completed his MA at a "cash cow" program with a large MA cohort, after being rejected from every Ph.D program that he applied to (including virtually unranked ones)...for two rounds straight. Applying with an MA in hand his third round, he had multiple Ph.D offers, including from a top-5 program. Out of the dozen or so of his MA peers who also applied this round, some received offers from Duke, Berkeley, Oregon, CUNY, and his MA institution (this is obviously a very, very incomplete list since I can't account for every student from his MA cohort). As harsh as this may sound, the results were somewhat predictable. The "picks of the MA litter" ended up at Berkeley and Duke. Other strong students wounded up at various other Ph.D programs. The weaker students who never quite caught on...didn't get into a single program. They all took the same classes (with some variation), and many obtained recs from the same professors. Some students made the expensive MA worth it, some did not. I can only offer some conjectures on what might have made the difference: The students who tend to benefit from an MA program tend to have the most of the fundamental skills needed for graduate school, but lack one or two elements that they quickly identity and correct before their Ph.D applications. Many students use the MA to gain the background that their lackluster undergrad programs did not provide. The MA is also an opportunity to gain the scholarly aptitude necessary to 1) produce a well-researched, well-thought-out, well-written writing sample 2) understand your field (and its current conversations) well enough to articulate a project in your SoP. It's really hard to articulate how much you learn in your first year of graduate school...but it really is a lot. Even as a Ph.D student (aka, theoretically, I was judged "fit" for graduate school without an MA in hand), my writing and scholarship has changed dramatically in the past year, far moreso than in all four yera of undergraduate program combined. My hunch is that under the right conditions, that difference can be even more dramatic for someone with slightly more holes to patch. In short, as I'm sure you already know, the MA is an opportunity and nothing else. It can potentially hurt you (the bar, I suspect but can't confirm, is higher for MA applicants than their BA counterparts), but if you can use that time and resources to "catch up" and exceed students with a B.A who did major in English and already knows how to produce the sophisticated WS and SoP's necessary, it might be well worth it. (the real question is...is it worth the cost? My partner worked 30 hours a week while completing his MA [and almost all his peers did the same] and is still deeply in debt). To address some of your questions: "My issues are that: I'm not an English major, my undergrad institution is of laughable quality, and my grades while strong, aren't exceptional. I also don't know that I've focused my areas of interest of research enough to assemble a strong enough "package" for PhD programs (this especially concerns me since program "fit" seems to be of the utmost importance for PhD admissions)....I know I like realism/naturalism, poetry/poetics, lyric prose, the novel, um you get my drift." That list is WAY too big. Even one element on that list might be a bit broad. Pick something (anything) that you're interested in, explore it in greater depth, figure out what's being said it right NOW, and situate yourself in that academic conversation. (fair warning: if you're applying with an MA, you'll need to be even more specialized). You're not married to your SoP topic...and in fact, a good many of my 2nd-year peers have already moved onto to issues entirely unrelated to what we said we'd study in our SoP's. That's normal. But you DO need to show that you can comprehend and contribute to a critical discourse. I guess my questions are two-fold: 1. How does one decide that one is "ready" or "competitive" for a PhD program? How do I separate my own insecurities from being realistic about my chances? You don't. I suspect, one never does. One of my professor told me something that I realize, increasing, is so true: EVERYONE in academia is scared s---less, from the graduate dean, to the tenured professor, even down to the first year graduate student. The only ones who aren't scared are undergrads, because they don't know what is at stake for the rest of us. However, you do learn to evaluate your work by the standards of the articles, books, etc that you admire. AFter all, the goal (publish or perish!) is to eventually write at THAT level...and graduate school is a long process towards getting there. It's not to say that your work must be publishable immediately (this is very rarely the case, even at the tip-top program), but you learn to grasp the increasingly more nuanced arguments...and find the tiny footholds that allows you to make your own case, in turn. I hope that that was helpful rather than mystical. 2. Do you think that for someone in my situation, who hopes to eventually get into a well-ranked (not top 10, but certainly top 20-30) program would be well-served by going the MA first route? Honestly, yes, I think it would help you....BUT (and this is a huge caveat) can you afford it? And can you live with yourself even if you don't get into a stellar Ph.D program afterwards? Good luck. This is a really tough situation, I think. It may serve you well to take a swing at strong Ph.D programs alongside the MA applications, just in case (though application fees do add up). If nothing else, you might be able to solicit feedback for later rounds. Finally, I hesitate to say this, because I think that the numbers mean very little unless you know the stories behind them, but it might be worth it to ask the DGS of your MA programs how their past students have fared. You may need to press a little for a more complete picture (or discretely ask the graduate students, though this can be a very touchy topic).

I'm not in your field of study, so I'm definitely making some assumptions here. It depends on what you mean by "regardless of subject." If you're articulating a very defined research interest in your SoP, you don't absolutely HAVE to submit a writing sample on that particular topic (but it would probably help if you do so). However, if you're, say, thinking of submitting a paper you wrote for an English class (aka, in an entirely different discipline entirely)....I definitely wouldn't. The writing sample for most humanities programs isn't simply to check that you "can write"...the ad-comms want to know that you're sufficiently well trained to enter the discourse in your particular field/discipline, and that you have the potential to eventually contribute to that field.

Definitely go to Istanbul. I lived in Athens and Istanbul for several months while studying abroad. Even though it's not at all related to my field, it was an incredible experience. To address your questions: 1. Yes, you can ask for LoR's from your professors in Turkey, but do feel them out first. This really depends on the instituion that you'll be attending, but not all LoR's are considered equal. I had WONDERFUL professors in Greece...who did not have Ph.D's. Also, in some countries/cultures, the expected LoR is quite brief, which might disadvantage you if you're considering American graduate schools. In any case, this is definitely an option...just be aware of the "translation" issues. 2. To make an impression on your professors, go in during office hours. (But please DO have actual questions/points to discuss. Contrary to what others have said, many professors are quite busy and do not have time for idle conversation, even if they love their students. I'm a graduate TA who holds office hours...and I really do prefer students who come in with specific questions or issues). Make sure that your work is turned in on time. Turn in drafts before the deadine, and discuss them with your profs. Not only does this give them a chance to guide your work one-on-one, but you'll likely become a better thinker/writer...and it's another point in your favor.

What a strange comment, Minnesotan. Perhaps I've misunderstood the context. What do you mean by that? Reef: I don't know if there is an easy answer to that question. I can't think of any program that is purely formalist (on the other hand, every program that I know of still incorporates some element of formalism). Even the more "conservative" programs (let's say, Yale) engages in several interdisciplinary approaches. I'm not very familiar with this program, but I've heard that historicism is popular there--but I simply doubt that it's the *only* approach. At a much larger program, such as Berkeley, you're more likely to see a greater variety of approaches, most of them interdisciplinary to some degree. And quite frankly, I don't think ANY program is truly monolithic: it'll really depend on who you end up with as an adviser, or recruit for your committees. Are you looking for programs with faculty that engage in more historicist approaches? For programs that avoid "theory" and interdisciplinary studies? Even if we accept narrow definitions of those vexed terms, I'm not sure that the latter exists, certainly not among the top programs. It's more a matter of *which* other discipline(s?) most strongly informs the approach, and how theory is integrated into the argument. As literary scholars, I don't think we can just get by with close-readings, not anymore. That said, you can probably find individual people at programs with more formalistic approaches.

Rex, What field are you considering? It's not unusual for graduate students to be considerably older: 3 members of my cohort are over 35. Assuming that your field of study isn't closely related to your previous careers, I think that you might want to consider an MA first. As for LoR's, is it possible to take classes (even as an audit/informally) at a local college? Graduate-level classes are ideal, but I think even an undergraduate class might work. If the schools around you have strict policies, it's sometimes also easier to take courses as a non-enrolled student during the summer. In addition to helping you secure more recent LoR's, it will give you a chance to produce a writing sample (if that's required for your programs) and play with ideas to discuss in your SoP. Good luck.

Since you've received a lot of good answers about re-taking the test, I'll respond to your original question. It really, really depends on the program that you're applying to. Some schools (yes, even the very tip-top ones) don't give a damn about the test scores, even when their application websites suggest otherwise. At one of "those" schools, you can get in with a 500, for all that they care, as long as your SoP and writing sample fits the bill. Others use the GRE verbal (sometimes alongside your GPA) as a sliding scale for the first cut. It's almost never an absolute cut (say, if you're below a 700, you're definitely out), but the combination of your GRE and GPA helps the ad-comm sort you into the appropriate pile for the second read. Schools that handle the initial sort based on numbers usually follow some version of this procedure: applicants with a certain score (usually 600, 650 680, or 700 depending on the program) will go to the "will read" pile, applicants just below might go into a second pile to be skimmed, and those who are really off might go into the "ditch" pile...but even then, an ad-comm might "rescue" an application with a promising sample or SoP. The problem is, it's hard to say exactly which schools follow what procedure, so to be safe, you might want to aim for 680 to be safe. Still...it's the writing that matters. Several individuals (even on this board) have gotten into tip-top schools with lower test scores, but insanely strong SoP's and writing samples. As a member of that "lucky bastard wgi cohort" from 2 years ago, I do want to put in my two cents on this: some of us had "lower" [below 700] test scores, but they were hardly "awful." Mine--at 690--was one of the lowest, and that still landed me in the 97th percentile). *** Ken Anderson: Without seeing your writing sample and your statement of purpose, I have absolutely no idea. The numbers can (sometimes) keep you out, but it's always, always, always the writing (and fit) that'll get you in. However, I might be able to offer some general (if unhappy) commentary on your field. It's very tough being a theorist (and/or a modernist) English applicant. It's a bloated field, and one of the toughest to break. Apply widely (but carefully, with a close eye on how the specific faculty fits your specific project), and solicit all the feedback that you can--specially from professors/peers outside of your field. You can't count on having a fellow theorist reading your application at every program (this will vary based on the program's exact admissions procedure), and so you'll want to make sure that your writing is intelligible and interesting to those who have little or no theoretical inclinations. As for the GRE scores...look, this simply won't be very helpful. I know of applicants who got into top programs (Berkeley, Princeton, etc) with barely a 600 verbal. I also know of applicants with a perfect 800 who was turned down from every program. While the GRE's are not to be ignored, it's a tiny part of the application, and hardly predictive of your success. Aim for the 700 (since it's the "highest" bar that I'm aware of...when a bar is used at all), but know that many applicants have succeeded with far lower scores.

I'm going off of the top of my head, and my recollections are at least two years old, so please do check them: Columbia UPitt WashU (optional, maybe?) Buffalo (again, perhaps optional?) Also, even if your scores are low, I wouldn't let the lit GRE alone stop you from applying to schools that do "require" them. Some programs that technically ask you to send in the scores do not consider them at all, or barely glance at them during the admissions process. This obviously varies from school to school (and asking the grad admin might not give you the "real" answer, merely the official one).

This is such a difficult issue to address, largely because there are so many factors: -how does the particular program you're applying to regard MA students? (this can also change from year to year, depending on the exact composition of the ad-coms) -what MA program did you come out of? How strong is it for your particular field? -what did you learn from your MA, and how does that translate in your writing? The MA degree is definitely a double-edged sword, and I really think it depends on how well you made use of your resources. The MA itself will not be a particular asset, and it can actually be an obstacle: I suspect that the bar is slightly higher for students applying with an MA versus those who are going straight with a Ph.D. While the ad-comms do not necessarily want a largely (particularly, if bloated) CV, they do expect to see more sophisticated levels of argumentation, better writing, better research: whereas the BA candidate needs to show potential, the MA candidate is supposed to begin fulfilling it. That said, the MA is the great equalizer: it gives students who might not have been quite *as* prepared in their undergrad programs a chance to gain the level of sophistication and knowledge necessary to do well. It's an opportunity: a valuable one for the right student, but not valuable in and of itself. After two rounds in which he failed to gain acceptance into ANY Ph.D program (including ones that are barely ranked), my partner obtained an MA from a particularly notorious "cash cow" program--and yes against all advice, he paid for it himself. With the MA in hand, he got into one of the top programs in the country, ranked several dozen places above either his MA or his BA institution. I sincerely doubt that ANY program found the extra letters behind his name to be impressive, but the writing sample and SoP that he turned in for this last round were incomparably better what he submitted the previous two rounds...and he gained that knowledge/level of writing only through the immersion of his MA program. I think--and perhaps I'm being optimistic here--that in the end, the application is judged on its own merit. Even if the particular ad-comm member disapproves of the cash cow MA program, he or she will still read (or at least skim) the SoP and the beginnings of the writing sample (assuming that your numbers are good enough to pass the initial cuts). If you can think, write, research, and argue extraordinarily well, that will come through no matter where you obtained your last degree. That said, I suspect that part of the stigma surrounding MA programs is simply that many candidates are NOT well-prepared when they enter the MA program, and even after 1-2 years, not all of them are sufficiently prepared to be competitive at the top Ph.D programs. Somewhere around 80-90% of my partner's MA cohort had never written a 20 page paper when they entered the program. (By contrast, some of the students at top undergrad programs write 100 page senior thesis). For some, the year-long program is sufficient time to play check-up...for others, well, they never quite do catch up.

This is a bit off-topic, but I'm rather amazed that there even is a Cracking the GRE 2012 edition study guide...considering that it's currently 2009.

Apologies if that was my mistake. That's so strange...I just highlighted the text and clicked on "quote." I must have screwed up somewhere.