comicline865

I think it's common for funding at public universities to remain uncertain into late March/early April. Moreover, public universities often apportion funding through a complex, bizarre, and bureaucratic system consisting partly of private endowments (departmental and otherwise) and partly of university money based, among other things, on departmental rankings of candidates. I think it's appropriate to inquire politely where you stand in the process, as the deadline for grad school choices are approaching and they can potentially give you valuable information about what to expect.

Thanks. I'd be interested in hearing if anybody else will be making a decision on Harvard one way or another (I've got a stake there and am hoping to have that option on or off the table sooner rather than later).

Χαῖρε, ὦ Τραιάνε, 1) Provided you can get in to a solid MA program, I don't see why you would choose a post-bac over it. The key reason for taking time off before applying to a classics PhD is cultivating your languages skills. You should be able to do that really well in an MA program. (You'll also probably get a solid writing sample out of it if you don't already have something lying around.) 2) No "hard" cut-offs for the GRE, but I do think that a 165+ verbal and 5+ writing are par for the course for most serious top-10 applicants. These numbers will ensure that your scores don't stand out as particularly low in comparison to the rest of your application (which should be strong if geared to a top-10). The #1 one thing you can do at this point is read more Latin and Greek (esp. Greek if you've already done a fair bit more Latin). You need to be at the "advanced" level (whatever you take that to mean) by the time you're looking at PhD programs. Continue with a modern language (e.g., German as you're doing). Pick up a second if you've got the time, but it probably won't make or break your application. Write something that will showcase your ability to interpret ancient texts in their original languages and deal with relevant classical scholarship (in English is fine). And get strong grades in your MA to show your continued upward trend. A 3.9+ in your MA should get you in the running. Oh, and congratulations on the choice.

As I understand it, Columbia's admissions are more or less "rolling." They have students up for in-person interviews individually and notify that person one or two weeks after the visit. Naturally, if you have an interview that you haven't done yet, I wouldn't look for a response. But if you did do an interview already, then keep an eye out.

I disagree broadly with the notion that you would have to know the specific interests/facets to get a sense for where the best classics departments are as far as getting a graduate education goes. There are some programs that will simply provide better philological preparation, allow you to read more, put you into better contact with more well-respected people in a variety of disciplines, not only your own, and so on. Do you have to be at one of these programs to get a great job, be intelligent, be a great reader of texts, and so on? No. Nothing is guaranteed anywhere and you can be successful from any background, but it's also a bit preposterous to claim that there are no departments that have better reputations for attracting and producing the "best" students. Perhaps if one knows exactly what one wants to study and does not care much about the general strengths of the program, his/her interests will be narrower in considering schools; but frankly, presuming that you will not change your interests at all or benefit from contact with really smart people in any number of other concentrations strikes me as either naïve or unimaginative for a great number of the prospective students. I must say that I think the question of the what the "best" schools are for classics is boring, but I don't think it's an asburd one to discuss in general terms, even if it's not terribly useful. People will apply to different places based on where they want to live, based on program fit, etc., but that doesn't mean that some schools aren't generally stronger overall in classical research than others. As for which and in what order--I've already said that those questions don't interest me too much. I think that the lists you've adduced, ὦ Χελώνη, suffice to give a good idea of which programs are typically thought to be strongs in classics, though I suspect one could quarrel over specific positions and perhaps a few inclusions/exclusions.

I don't want to generate a frenzy of speculation, but it is my understanding that UPenn (Classics) has already interviewed, accepted, and/or rejected a fair number of people. Do with that what you will.

I wouldn't lose hope yet.

I don't think that the interviews are intended to distinguish between those students who are especially capable of studying philosophy and those who aren't. Presumably, they will already know this from the rest of the application. Rather, I think that the interviews serve either (1) to acquire any information missing from the application relevant to admission and, more importantly, (2) to select from among the academically excellent applicants the candidates they would be able to tolerate close contact with for the next 5-10 years of their lives. So a lot of the interview process would seem to be a "luxury" thing, for those schools that can afford to split hairs among the "best" candidates. This is surely not the case for every interview, but I think it's a reasonable way to look at them in general. Perhaps in the case of philosophy they assume grad students will make life hard for them anyway, so they say to hell with it? (Disclosure: I study philosophy too.)

Most "official" rejections come several weeks later than acceptances. So if you don't get an acceptance and have good evidence that others have, you may be able to infer your status, pending direct news from the school. That said, it's not a sure bet, and it seems schools can send multiple rounds of acceptances. Moreover, a late response does not preclude ending up on the waiting list, so don't necessarily lose hope.

Huh, yeah. I'm not even sure what that means. It doesn't seem like an interview could be "via email."

Janeiro, is that you who reported "interview view email" on results?

No need to apologize. I was a bit surprised at how early it came--but pleasantly so!

Whoops--I thought it was clear I was claiming one. So it's "validated."

Hmm, no I'm not sure. This was for "Classics" (language, literature, philosophy, etc.)

It's up now.

Berkeley admits are out (via email).

Take a look at "Fall 2014 Season" thread, where some introductions have been made.

Exciting. It's *likely* that accepted applicants to UChicago, UC-Berkeley, and possibly Stanford will hear back within two weeks, give or take. (More could be added to this list, I'm sure.)

I think that requirements for proficiency in German, French, sometimes even Latin, are, in the modern context, less about reading "primary texts"--for which, as others have noted, excellent translations are typically available--and more about reading major scholarly publications. It is still the case that seminal publications on philosophers from Aristotle and Plato to the moderns remain untranslated in the original German, French, or what have you. I can't imagine that such reading requirements were more than a formality in the 19th and 18th centuries, when stipulations for multilingualism would have probably been superfluous for anybody seeking any sort of advanced degree. If it's the case for some disciplines, or sub-disciplines, that language requirements are no longer necessary (either because the research is primarily in English-speaking countries or because there is enough demand that anything worthwhile is instantly translated), then I'm sure the language requirements will, for those specific disciplines, eventually be dropped. But the academic machine turns verrrryyyyy slowlllyyyyyyyyyyyyyy, so I would expect a significant lag time before language requirements totally disappear--and for some studies (classics, etc., where major publications are routinely in other languages), I'm sure they never will. I have to admit, however, that I am a bit suspicious of any disciplines for which there is not a sufficient international dialogue for modern languages to be germane. Even if it's all translated instantly and accurately--wouldn't you still want not only to tag along, but also to actively engage and respond? More generally, one might argue that without knowledge of the original language of a text, one is always moving within another's interpretation (supposing translation always includes a bit of interpretation).

It used to be that any PhD program worth its salt in the humanities would require two languages (typically French & German), even, e.g., American history programs. If this is not the case anymore, then it's sad to hear. In some of the more philologically oriented disciplines (classics, e.g.), 4-5 languages are still required (Latin, Greek, French, German, Italian typically). I always am a bit taken aback when I hear somebody "works on Derrida" but has no French. From Table: This is also true. In most cases, "languages" means taking a course for "reading comprehension." Depending upon your field, you will either lose that level of proficiency quickly (if you're not making use of it), or improve it till its enough to read at a reasonable pace.

Don't footnote it; include it in the actual body. Pointing out specific articles and books that are highly relevant to your studies and have proven useful in the writing of your thesis (for example) helps them understand what sort of scholarship you're looking to do with the department.

With a grain of salt: if one must draw a distinction between the two, SOP is prospective, personal statement is retrospective. In most cases, the SOP is far more important, as it is where the applicant puts a serious discussion of interests, preparation, and fit; the personal statement provides room for the applicant to highlight extraordinary hardship and challenges faced in his/her education. Many applications will not request a personal statement (also called a "diversity statement"). Others will call it optional. Unless you've got a legitimate hardship, or an experience which conveys "genuine" contact with diversity (e.g., you worked in the peace corps in a developing country), do not fill it out (unless required). If optional and it is left blank, it will not hurt your application; if you fail a PC test, for example by bemoaning the "stifling" intellectual environment of your top tier private school, then you will only alienate the committee and come across as an ass.

You don't need more than 5, provided they are all good choices in terms of program and location.

This is correct (also on my use of disingenuous). My assumption is that your interests/background would be 75% of your application and would remain largely untouched. Of course you will explain how the program can suit those interests--but that (to my mind) is a smaller part of the application than the initial presentation of your interests.

To be frank: who cares? Do you really think they will make a decision on the basis of a joke in your statement, no matter how hard it makes them laugh? Cf. TakeruK's first post: Nothing more to be said.