0000000000AAA

I know, TripWillis, I wasn't trying to sound too cynical. But my fear is that in the 3-4 sentences that we include in our statements, it won't be easy for the adcomms to tell who is genuinely compelled to be there and who is merely faking it. And really, would the programs unilaterally prefer one over the other? At this level we are all motivated, smart, and willing. What's the advantage for the school for "perfect fit"? I've even heard from upper level PhDs in the program I'm in now that if the fit between adviser and advisee is too close it causes problems. Better to do something slightly outside of the range of the adviser's publications, so they can guide you, advise you with their more expansive reading, but generally be hands off. The trick is, I think, that you should write something they wouldn't (and vice versa).

It sounds like a test to make sure you can navigate JSTOR!

EXACTLY! "Fit" (if there is such a thing) isn't about matching interests with professors butabout piquing their interest. I've been told specifically to avoid identifying myself with other critics (by name or tendency). Instead, identify myself with my work and let my work interact (organically) with other criticism.

Or maybe Duke?

However, I think it's a myth, at least in English, that professors who are mentioned get the apps. Unless they are on the committee, then they won't see it. Several profs (because I've asked!) have told me this point blank. If they aren't tasked with committee duty, than they have pretty much NOTHING to do with it. In 3 years, when that candidate is starting to look for an adviser (assuming they are still in the same field with the same interests) then they start talking seriously.

Because 6 different professors have told me that few things are more rude, disqualifying, overbearing, presumptuous, and unprofessional than a PhD applicant showing up in professor's inbox. "There is no conceivable reason for you to bother them" one told me. I know others here have differing views and anecdotal evidence of it not hurting, but this woman no doubt gets hundreds of emails a day. One more will not help--especially to get info that I could probably get just as easy from the dept admin.

But she won't be taking me on as student (if I got in) for 3 years probably. Do you all think that if you mention a professor in a statement they will be contacted to see your app? I've been told that even when the prof is not on leave, this does not happen.

I just noticed that a Prof I want to work with is currently on leave. I don't know if it's old info, she could be just going or just coming back and I doubt it's for more than a year, so does anyone think this matters? Obviously there's no chance she'll be on the adcomm, but most professors at an institution aren't going to be on a given adcomm so there's nothing new there. (I used to be under the impression that any professor I mentioned in my statement would magically be shown my application--that was summarily laughed out of me by several professors). Does anyone think it hurts?

I know the advice I've heard runs against the grain, but I've been advised to do as little as that as possible. On prof (Yale 02) said that you applicants who don't bother even mentioning the program come off as more professional and motivated. Another (UVA late 90s) sort of shrugged and advised me not to include anything in my SOP about any given school (he said all it demonstrates is familiarity with their website and JSTOR). If you're interests overlap, they will see that. Besides, I've heard from many professors, at many good programs, that professors really don't want students who will just continue their work. I'm sure you wouldn't end up doing that, but I think viable originality counts for more than fit.

There's no such thing as a good or bad score---these scores all have audiences: the schools we are applying to. What is golden to one audience another might find lackluster. I couldn't imagine being happy or unhappy with a score without the context of schools. When I told a prof I got a 720 on the verbal, he said "Great; it'll keep you out of a few places, but generally quite strong." It was a good reminder that the scores don't exist outside of this institutional framework.

I think every school has a different policy. It probably depends on what their applicant and admit numbers are like. I'm sure some schools make their first cut based on GPA, and some try to do a holistic picture, and others (one top 5 I know in particular) does their first cut based on combined quant and verbal scores. I think in some cases it's outside of the hands of the English dept and is mandated by the grad school. Every department is different.

eh hem....early modern

My understanding is that it works because you can basically teach as much as you want/can. So people can generally take on enough adjuncting (spread out all over the CUNY system) to cover their costs and live. The downside of course is how much you teach. I met a girl there recently who was working on her dissertation proposal in her 6th year. She may be an outlier, but when she told me she didn't seem to suggest that it was weird or unheard of. It's a school that should be on my list--and several profs have asked me why it's not. It's not because I'm dubious of continuing to live in New York as a pauper.

I'm sort of naive on how this works, but are the raw scores averaged out? And are the percentiles based on the test that we took or on the subject test in general?

I just broke down and gave ETS $12 dollars for information that will suddenly become free in 2 weeks. I got a 710-96% percentile. It's a huge relief, and just makes me realize that all that matters now is my writing sample/SOP.

I think it behooves all of us to think constantly about the job market. I've been advised (at the MA level) to be reading job listings to get a sense of what kind of demand there is. Obviously, the types of positions and focuses will shift slightly during my Phd, but the idea that we are like inspired artists is a bit silly. The best, most brilliant work imaginable, if not somehow cohered with the contemporary conversation, will never be useful or interesting. I want to contribute.

I was told by a professor that he doesn't understand why everyone doesn't pretend to be a 17th British person, write one decent essay in the field, and then once you're accepted into a program, do whatever you want! (No offence of course to 17th british people!) Nothing stops people from radically changing their minds once accepted. He commented that statistically the odds of getting in as 17th Brit or early American is like 10x better than a modernist. If they can be mercenary, why not us?

They've also estimated how old scores look in the new system. My Verbal 720 is now an estimated 168 My quant 770 is now an estimated 161 (which makes a lot of sense because a verbal 720 is much higher percentile wise than a quant 770) I wonder if this information goes out with the score reports.

For those who have already taken the subject exam, are they actually going to take 6 weeks to post the score? It's a scantron! I understand they want to give themselves a wide window, but why do they need that much time? WJ

I'd echo a lot of what was said here. Even if no amount of studying will guarantee a perfect score, studying is still helpful. I think the idea of the test is that no one should get a perfect score, because no one has all that knowledge. You aren't expected to know the context for obscure poems; you're expected to get those questions wrong. It makes for a harrowing, terrible experience. Also, I was taken aback by the amount of raw historical knowledge that was tested--like the questions that asked to correlate poems with concurrent historical events.

Agree with others! The idea isn't just bad, it's awful. "Admissions Counselors" only make decisions for undergrads. Graduate programs essentially handle their own admission. Waltzing into a English dept and asking "so whose got office hours today?" is not going to help your cause. If you want to appear devoted or serious about the school, but it in the SoP.

Haru, I sympathize with your anxiety--I feel it too. But on the flip side, think of the time that could end up wasted if we get on the market with lackluster (or less than stellar) Phds. Are article submissions aren't read, we don't get interviews, major presses won't publish our monographs. That's wasted time.

A real option, that sadly no one talks about, is transferring. I've become close with a professor of mine who is guiding me through the app process. He has advised me to essentially avoid anything outside of the top 20 because otherwise the investment of time isn't worth it career-wise. He explained his own path: after a masters at a mid-level school, he attended a top 40ish program. He quickly looked around and realized that in basically every school you can find the new hires are coming out of the top 20. There are enough PhDs coming out of the top 20s to fill every job in the country--and even if you can find anecdotal evidence of preference for non-top 20 schools, it's just anecdotal. It's not reality. So from his top 40ish program he put together a new app and got into Stanford. The moral, as he put it: better to waste a year (or years) and finally emerge with a phd that means something than come out of a middling school and adjunct for the rest of your life. Second moral: get to where you want to be! If your school has no cred or recognition, FINE, then trade up to a place that has some, and then trade up again. Get to where you should be! Latte: If you are confident that you have the potential to be a major scholar than don't let your undergrad keep you out of a major school. And don't be seduced by thinking that fit matters more than the school. You will change significantly during your PhD and what your "fit" is will change too. Many of my profs who all went to top 20 programs have said that they didn't end working with the person they assumed (and wrote in their statement) they would.

yes I agree. I should have qualified my statement about the range. I'm really only talking about top 20. Nearly every grad student gets a paper back with notes that say "publishable" and lots of professors tell students such things. It's flattering and means they take your work seriously and that your work is serious. But publication and publications are very elitist. You can damage your brand. And by and large, the time it takes to prepare an article for publication in a top journal is longer than a master's student can realistically expect. I had a paper that was "publishable." I asked the prof what I should do and his advice was wait:when you have time, more experience, more reading under your belt, and (importantly) contacts at serious journals, then do it. Good luck to all! Do yo feel time getting short? I DO.

First of, if right now, you aren't willing to commit to what you will write your dissertation on (in 2-4 years) it does not mean you are less focused or motivated. It just means you're more honest with yourself. The point is demonstrating the ability to articulate avenues of research and investigation. You shouldn't just list interests, but you also shouldn't have a thesis.