NowMoreSerious

Response to the bolded: I don't think GPA is enough information for me to make that inference, personally. All it says is that the student did not do well in a particular set of classes in a particular school, during a certain period. For instance, is the GPA weighed down by lower grades in the first few years? Is even the major GPA weighed down by courses outside of the students passion? Now I know somebody might say that even if that's the case, success in graduate school requires an overall ability toward academic excellence in general. Maybe, but there's just so much more to the story than GPA. Ph.D. is a different, since one can direct and focus their work on what they want to, for the most part. I know people who had fairly poor undergrad GPAs. EVEN IN the major, who are now incredible scholars in graduate school. Personally, I would consider GRE and GPA equally lukewarm indicators, with maybe GRE being a slightly better indicator because GRE is somewhat like a test that you have to crack, and the ability to crack the GRE and form a study plan which will maximize your score might actually be a transferable skill to the sometimes breakneck pace of graduate school. For example, the same sort of "shortcuts" I used to score high on the GRE...that same muscle, has served me well when being able to make the most out of my time and energy as a grad student. All that is to say, though, that the question of how important any of these things are doesn't answer the question of whether a particular school has a cut-off. I've said it many times on here, but it really is a very mysterious process that decides who gets in to particular schools. It often seems illogical and counterintuitive.

Yep, I want to 2 different community colleges, BA, and MA from same school, and I had to send all transcripts..everything to every college. It was a pain in the ass, but luckily many schools will accepts non-officials.

RE: interdisciplinary opportunities Much of this depends on your program. Specifically, do they allow you to take coursework outside of the department? Do they allow people from other departments to be on committees? Do they have strong programs in a wide variety of departments related to your interdisciplinary interests? Are there reading groups that cross departmental boundaries? Are some professors cross listed? These things usually point towards interdisciplinary opportunity. Some English programs are very insular. In fact they are known for being insular. Other programs are pretty open. For instance my program at UCLA is strong in Literature and the Sciences, even.

I wanted to add a few things that I've posted on here before, but that I haven't seen said lately. When looking at placement, look deeper. In other words, make sure that the school places students from a variety of fields and through a variety of dissertations and professors. It might be, for example, that your program is really really strong in Medieval, (maybe having some prominent professors in that area), and that they place a lot of Medieval students in tenure track jobs. But if you are in American Literature, where does that put you? Look also at the specific professors you want to work with, and if students with them in their dissertation committees have a good placement record. This being said, it might be that the university has an infusion of new professors in a specific field/area, so you can't really judge placement. If this is the case, and you are planning on working with these professors, do make sure you ask them about their mentorship/advisement style. Ask them what they look for when they plan to be on a committee, etc. Ask them how they handle professionalization. (Or as I call it, the P word)

Congrats! I give people the same advice every year. I know for many students it's all kind of just exciting and they want to just accept and be done with it ASAP, but it's important to play the game here.

Kura! Hello! (But yeah in a case like Rutgers and UCLA they are essentially ranked the same, so the decision is much easier.) But @pbnwhey I think when you are talking about that big a gap, I strongly urge you to choose UCLA, and I swear this is not my own bias here. I would say the same thing if it was any comparable school such as Virginia, Rutgers, and Ann Arbor. I know many people who have gone through Grad school across the country. There are people who hate the city they live in, or can barely afford it, but love their program. There are also people who love the city and are comfortable in it, but hate their program. In almost every case, it is the latter who have the most regret, and more often than not, quit or leave early. The thing about expensive places such as Los Angeles, Chicago, etc, is that once you get to know the city, you will learn where it is possible to move to to be able to afford to live. So the first year will be difficult, because of the adjustment and you not knowing where to move, but it will improve, and you will be in not just a good, but an outstanding world-ranked program in your field. You will not be living on ramen noodles for 6 years. Maybe for 1 year. And the fact that you have a significant other already tells me that if they can find work, it should be doable.

That's correct. So despite the fact that technically all TA salaries are the same across UCs, in practice this is not exactly the case. I'm currently in a situation like you describe, for example.

For this period, you are in a position of power. And you can and should take all the time you need to make your decision. You also have to take into account funding here. Most all grad programs have some type of extra sweetener money meant to entice people into accepting, even beyond fellowships. Which brings me to fellowships. Lets say you got accepted to schools A and B. Most schools have some kind of nice fellowship which offers you at least 1 non-TA year if not more, like some kind of Chancellor's fellowship. It might happen that you aren't the recipient of it...YET. So follow me here. Lets say school A is your first choice and you are pretty sure you want to go there. They might have already offered that chancellor's fellowship to somebody. But that student might end up going to Harvard or Yale, as it often happens. When that student declines the offer, which will likely happen in April, the school might then offer you that Chancellor's fellowship to get you to accept. So even if you believe you will go somewhere, you can only gain from waiting. Ok, now scenario 2, you WERE offered that Chancellor's fellowship. This means you are like their mega first choice. Hell, even more reason to wait. They might find an extra 2k-5k for you in the form of summer funding, or even just in addition to your first year fellowship. The moral of the story is, (not to repeat myself, but) you have everything to gain from waiting, especially if the schools are comparable in rank or prestige. in your case so far, you want to make Duke or Santa Cruz tremble a bit. I know it might sometimes be difficult for us English majors to have this mindset. And if you are anything like me, you are probably just excited at the prospect of graduate school and are maybe just happy to have been accepted, but believe me, turn the screws on these schools right now. That being said, there's nothing wrong with expressing excitement and interest in their programs in your emails to them. I'm in no way saying you should give any of the schools the impression you don't want to be there. Be friendly and excited in emails, but don't tip your hand to them.

I honestly think the biggest piece of advice is a mindset. Have the mindset that your job is now to read at least 4+ hours a day, sometimes things that aren't that enjoyable, and sometimes things that are mind-blowing. And you are reading, very often, for "take aways" and things that you might potentially use in academic scholarship.

They invited you because they probably have a very short wait list, or you are very high on it, or both. As others have said, few schools do this so I would take advantage of it and go. That being said, if/when more acceptances pour in then you'll have to strategize and prioritize. Believe me, I know from experience these visits get really expensive (I visited 6 schools in 2013.

Those are pretty good MA programs actually. I came from an unfunded, unranked MA program and I did pretty well all things considered. I will echo others in saying that you should have a pretty clear plan with your MA. Your goal there should be to develop an understanding fields you are interested in, while constructing a writing sample and building a relationship with mentors. Don't just think of it as "well I'm going to take seminars and get A's and then I'll know if I'm ready for a PhD." Be focused.

I think it's pretty amazing that, if they are as concerned with diversity as they say, there still exists what I believe is a crisis of lack of people of color in Ph.D. programs. I am aware, of course, that some of that is due to larger structural inequalities in class and education as a whole, but regardless, not much is being done other than accepting people of color that are already primed for it.

Sorry I didn't get to this thread sooner, but UCLA. I realize that their deadline has already passed, and I hope and pray you applied here because our ethnic literature presence is very deep, plus we have one of the few Ph.D. programs in Chicana/o Studies, an Asian-American Studies program, an African-American Studies program, and a Native American Studies Program. You are allowed to take classes in these.

For perspective: Now in my third year, I don't work with either of the two professors I named in my SOP, nor do they serve on any of my committeess. I think what was important on my SOP is demonstrating that I knew how to lay out an SOP and how to align my work, at least in theory, with that of professors in the department. They are looking for an SOP that coheres, and that you are able to connect your work to that of professors in ways that seem crucial, almost as if that was the perfect school for you. Just like the rest of your SOP, make it concrete and demonstrate how carefully you can think about things in general.

You may be right. But it seems weird that certain tenured English professors had enough power alone to do this. I can't help but feel there were other forces involved, such as the democratization of university education in the 60's. It would be a pretty incredible historical moment in academia if a relatively small group of tenured English professors were able to change the landscape of higher education by refusing to teach lower level undergraduate classes. Totally agree that the wide scale demise of funding is the heart of the issue though.

With all due respect, aren't you confusing causes and effects? Weren't (more of) those intro classes given to grad students and adjuncts precisely because of larger economic and political forces which necessitated budget streamlining? Unless you are saying that the fight had to happen right then and that departments needed to draw a line in the sand with administrators and, by extension, state and federal governments. In that case, you can't separate and single out Literature. You also have to admit that your characterization of literature's interest in undergraduate teaching is part and parcel of our current holy war. It's just like how, at our worst, literature people blame rhet/comp for cow-towing to administrative and governmental appeals to pragmatism and streamlining, often using "college for job skills and nothing more" rhetoric. I'm of the opinion that hardliners of that rhetoric are ushering in further standardization of humanities education that is in danger of censoring and eroding new forms of thinking and at worst, any forms of political dissent. One of my main mentors, who is a R/C Ph.D., said, "We need to save our discipline." Yes, but we also need to think about what we are saving exactly and at what cost.

I understand your frustration. And I understand you were responding to somebody else. But you have to know that your cartoon version of Literature programs and professors fits neatly into the very rhetoric neoliberals (or whatever word one prefers to use) use to hack away at the entire humanities. Personally, even though I am in Literature, I take C/R very seriously and study C/R scholarship. I considered a Ph.D. in Comp/Rhet. But what do you propose? That they get rid of literature? Do you think for a second that if that happens, that rhet comp will thrive? The University will be more streamlined or complete? I'm seriously asking.

Welcome to the jungle! Congrats! If you have any questions, talk to me. Pm me.

I wish you the best of luck, especially because with those interests we would be in the same circles.

When you say you like Russian Literature, do you just mean in translation, or do you also read Russian? Same question for Films. What you might want to think about is how invested you are in the above. If your heart is in cultural products in all of those languages, then I highly recommend you start looking at interdisciplinary programs and comparative literature programs in places that also have strong Film and Slavic Languages departments. Do you have a set of specific career goals yet? If tenure track, what types of departments? Either way, I'd start here: Yale: Film + Literature Stanford: Modern Thought and Literature (MTL) Brown: Modern Culture and Media (MCM) Minnesota: Comparative Studies in Discourse and Society (strong in critical theory) Comparative Literature or English Departments at Schools that have a strong Film Program, a strong Slavic Languages program AND will let you take courses in those and give you general flexibility with your study. Off the top of my head: NYU, UCLA, Berkeley, and USC, Cornell, UPenn Yeah I'm a bit biased, but UCLA offers the option in experimental critical theory that focuses a lot on psychoanalysis. We also have one of the largest film and tv archives on earth. Just sayin'

That's interesting. So do you sort of "hop" over the 19th century? Also, congrats on the Ph.D. acceptance. Your next move obviously might depend on where you got in.

How can an appeal to "agency" ever, in any form, dismiss structural forces? I'm only suspicious here because agency is often used precisely against workers such as migrant laborers, "Well they chose to come here!" Now I do agree with your point that some privileged people suddenly become concerned with labor issues, or overstate their status as a worker, when the economy hits them personally. This is especially in cases where individuals have had the luxury to ignore these issues for most of their lives. I don't know that this is the case with the OP. However, I don't see an issue with connecting exploited "intellectual" labor with exploited "material" labor (in the conventional sense). In fact, I think capitalist ideology is at its most effective when it is able to reinforce these divides, not the other way around. At least in the U.S. post-post Fordist era, we are seeing transitions and shifts occurring with the democratization of intellectual labor and the subsequent exploitation of that labor, complete with its lumpenization of them. In a very real way, though, I think this points to the need to co-organize and co-conspire across labor categories. This is something that almost never happens anymore, except, at times, with worker-student type alliances between campus service workers and students.

Just go ahead tell us where you are waitlisted. Trying to thin the field, eh?