coffeeplease

From my experience, be as careful as possible: I found it really easy to burn bridges with these things. In fact, I recently ran into the program coordinator/graduate recruiter at a department where I declined admission over two years ago... And she said she still remembers being really upset that I declined. It's worth noting that you may well burn bridges simply by declining an offer, and you want to minimize that as much as possible.

Fields can be small, and keeping good connections is really helpful.

As was mentioned earlier, it's not like you'll make or break their year by not coming- but if they've taken the time to put together visits, financial packages, etc. they've already invested a decent amount of time in you, and you should be courteous and somewhat personal in declining, imo. Especially if you're in the running/have received fellowships, etc.

I wrote mine emphasizing my choice based on research fit. It was the easiest way to go, and got the best response, I think. I sent e-mails to PI's I'd met with (that I was particularly interested in working with), as well as the program director/DGS. Declining based on fit is a professionally respectable choice- declining based on financial packages, location, weather, etc. are all less so.

I still keep up with people from schools I did not attend, and I think the connections you make in the application/admission process can be quite beneficial down the road.

I turned in a paper whose title was [TITLE GOES HERE].

My prof wrote next to it, "Yes, it does."

I turned in a paper whose title was [TITLE GOES HERE].

My prof wrote next to it, "Yes, it does."

I turned in a paper whose title was [TITLE GOES HERE].

My prof wrote next to it, "Yes, it does."

I turned in a paper whose title was [TITLE GOES HERE].

My prof wrote next to it, "Yes, it does."

I turned in a paper whose title was [TITLE GOES HERE].

My prof wrote next to it, "Yes, it does."

I turned in a paper whose title was [TITLE GOES HERE].

My prof wrote next to it, "Yes, it does."

I turned in a paper whose title was [TITLE GOES HERE].

My prof wrote next to it, "Yes, it does."

I turned in a paper whose title was [TITLE GOES HERE].

My prof wrote next to it, "Yes, it does."

I turned in a paper whose title was [TITLE GOES HERE].

My prof wrote next to it, "Yes, it does."

I guess I can enjoy the exhortation of Virgil when he wrote "forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit"

You know I was puzzled myself about this question
I prepared an answer but during two interviews that I had they did not ask me to tell about myself!
Anyway, I was going to start like that: "I am XX years old and I was born in XX city. I studied at XXXX University" And then I was going to tell how I got interested in the topic I want to study in grad school.
I think there are many ways you can approach this question. Do not go into details, make the answer concise and professional, not too personal. If they want to know some personal stuff, they will ask you.
And do not be afraid to repeat things you've written in your SOP. They have read many SOPs so they might not remember some details and even if they do they might want you to elaborate on these things.

Good luck!

This is a great list!

My favorite, of course, is this one:

Bullshit.

The first semester of a graduate program--*any* graduate program--is a beast. Browse the 'officially grads' forum for "depression", "anxiety", "first semester blues," and so forth. A solid grad program is mentally, physically, and emotionally taxing in ways that very few of us get to go through before hand. I had a massive emotional crash the first semester of my MA and probably a worse one the first semester of my PhD (which, btw, was also at least partially related to SWEET HEAVENS THIS IS THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE); I'm now finishing up PhD semester #3 and I'm finally starting to feel human again. Well, sometimes.

Also, *nobody* thinks they deserve to be in graduate school. It's called 'impostor syndrome.' (Really; this is A Thing). Actually, we simultaneously all think we're the shit, and shit.

I cannot recommend highly enough checking to see whether your school has a graduate student support group that meets during the spring semester. I don't think I would still be here if it weren't for group last spring. (I couldn't go in the fall; I had class during every single possible support group/"drop in for a quick chat" scheduling block. It was horrible.) I'm wishy-washy on the merits of individual counselling, but just being able to vent and listen to other people vent about sort of similar but mostly different problems was cathartic and VALIDATING.

Do you like what you do? Do you like EE? If so, stick it out at least another semester. See how you do when you have a chance to get your legs under you.

I know quite a few people who ended up on academic probation their first semester. (Actually, I technically did as well, but that was due to an incomplete rather than a low GPA. Not that my GPA is a shining exemplar of scholastic aptitude. My undergraduate self curls up into a ball and sobs at the mere sight of it.)

Frantz Fanon's Black Skin, White Masks and Wretched of the Earth are both interesting on race and colonialism. I also suggest some Roland Barthes, Image, Music, Text and Walter Benjamin "Theses on the Philosophy of History,” “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction,” if you haven't already read them both. I'd also check out Aime Cesaire's Discourse on Colonialism. And then the Frankfurt School--it does help to read up on Adorno and Horkeimer, “The Concept of Enlightenment, “ The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception,” in The Dialectic of Enlightenment even if you think they're a little out there (they can be really productive). One of my favorites is Louis Althusser, “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses (Notes towards an Investigation).” And then of course there's Foucault (especially important in terms of identity politics), and I also like Guy Debord's Society of the Spectacle. And for feminism, I suggest the work of Andrea Smith, Chandra Mohanty, Puar (mentioned above) and the Bridge books (Bridge Called My Back, Bridge We Call Home). And check out Paul Gilroy's Black Atlantic too (diaspora, performance).

Ugh, the longer I wait the more nervous I become. I don't really have a solid Plan B ... I suppose my options are A) staying at my current job (NO!), B ) applying for an MA abroad or C) moving back home and looking for temp work or some kind of internship there. None of those are particularly horrible, but going through this whole process has made me realize just how much I WANT to go to grad school and do my PhD, so it will really, really suck if I get rejected across the board.

!!!

From Tumblr (http://robintheshrew.tumblr.com/post/14035414319)

Wow! Here's another site you guys would love: http://bookshelfporn.com/

WE ARE THE DREAMERS OF DREAMS!

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.

Terry Eagleton's, Literary Theory: an Introduction,is always a good place to start--in gives a comprehensive overview of the history of critical theory in brief discussions of the biggest contributors to literary schools of thought.

As far as feminist theory, I'm really not big into feminism, but I just read Gilbert & Gubar's Madwoman in the Attic, and it was an interesting to consider some of the 19th century roots from which feminist approaches have unfolded. I must say, the Victorians were also not as "Victorian" as we often think, and G&G do a fine job of subtly hinting that women were actually at times trying to subvert their patriarchal confines in literary attempts rather than bend to them. I am hugely into aestheticism right now, and Walter Pater and Oscar Wilde propose mindboggling ways to interact with art that also bring up a strongly anti-feminist polemic (which is why I read Madwoman, to see the other side of the argument).

I read a really cool article on linguistic theory that attempts to show how the American english dialogue is largely imbued with markers of time and money to express ourselves, though I can't remember what it was called...so I'm sure that isn't very helpful. Maybe a Google search could point you in the right direction? Deborah Tannen is also someone to look at who considers the linguistic differences in communication between men and women (now that I am writing all this out, I realize I actually have had a lot of experience with feminist perspectives despite my distaste of them haha).

Hegel and Derrida (Of Grammatology) are also favorites of mine, and everyone should probably become familiar with the main tenets of Freud and Lacan as applied to literary theory at some point--I had one class where we deconstructed (Derrida) Poe's The Purloined Letter through the power/agency/position (Lacan) of the different hands that the letter fell into given their gender (Freud), and that was perplexing to say the least.

T.S. Eliot's Tradition and the Individual Talent and The Perfect Critic outline his take on a New Critical approach, and his Ulysses, Order, and Myth is an example of its application to a text.

....those are just some of the works that have left lasting impressions on me in the past year or so.

Also quitting my job. I can't wait.

Also, some chocolate and a box of tissues.

You guys are so classy. If I'd had to pick an alcohol, it would have been tequila, salt, lime, shot glass. And a really greasy hangover breakfast.