NowMoreSerious

Question: Why would you present the same paper at multiple conferences? If you have a good reason, then go ahead. Nobody is policing this stuff. Now if you are silly enough to put both presentations on your CV with the exact same title, then I don't know what to tell you.

I know this has been said before, but my best advice, having applied to 16 schools last year, is to apply to as many schools that are a good fit for your interests as you can afford. Believe me, at the end of the season, the results might look much different than you might have expected. I didn't get into several schools that were "lower ranked" than the schools I did get into. There are many variables that figure into where you get accepted. For instance, at one school I was given insider information that I was among their top three choices for all applicants. At another school ranked like 30 places below that school, I wasn't even waitlisted. Both, I thought, were good fits.

Heh. As a 34 year old starting my PhD this fall, I can assure you that many of us have not been spending all of these intervening years just soaking up literature. Many of us have been working full time in careers unrelated to academia, getting married, having kids, getting laid off, divorced, etc, etc. If anything our only advantage is maybe some perspective and experiences with hardship and failure, since many early 20's PhD students have basically been academic rock stars most of their lives. But I'm not sure that makes up for the type of energy that only somebody in their early 20's can have. If you pour that energy into your work, you'll thrive.

All I can say is this, and I've said it before here. I visited 6 different schools in making my decision, and of all the fellow prospectives I met (probably at least 50), it was difficult to get a sense of what we all had in common. Many came from different types of schools, different ages, backgrounds, etc. There was also huge variation in people's GRE scores and GPA's.<br /><br />But the one thing I noticed about everybody was their unique and cutting edge interests. Everybody was looking at a really interesting subject area and doing so in a very fresh way. Of all the people I talked to, nobody bored me with their research focus. I mostly left those conversations with an enriched sense of possibilities for work in the humanities. That's how powerful I thought people's research interests were. So in presenting yourself to these schools, especially through your writing sample and SOP, you might want to tap into that, however vague or abstract or general it sounds.

Do all schools require a medical history? If so I'm screwed, because I'm not sure how well the free clinic keeps records. Ok fine that wasn't funny.

I'd just like to say that some of these things aren't exactly luck. How can somebody get lucky and "say the right things," for example? People with good networking skills usually work pretty hard at it and furthermore put themselves out there. I agree there is plenty of luck involved with life in general, but that's an area where I think luck plays less of a factor.

I'll make it easy for you. Assuming the fit is good, pick Irvine if they are funding you right. Though I admit I am biased because KeelyMk accepted there and a comrade (MA cohortmate) of mine also accepted there and will be starting this fall.

I have accepted UCLA's offer, and that is my final answer.

Just declined University of Virginia and University of California, Davis. Hope this helps somebody.

gwarner were you at the visiting week? Did we meet?

I am one of those undecided. I am deciding by Tuesday either way.

I have just declined my offer to Purdue. I hope this helps somebody!

Congrats! UCI is a great program. A good friend of mine recently got his English PhD there about 2-3 years ago, and I have a fellow cohortmate and comrade from my current MA program also starting there this fall with you, and she's awesome in every way possible. You really can't go wrong with any of your excellent choices though. It was great meeting you at UCLA by the way.

Congrats to you! I knew they wouldn't be able to not take you. Possible cohort-mate here.

obvious troll is in fact quite obvious

For what it's worth, SF State has a pretty good reputation around here in California as far as English goes.

I would suggest that you apply to more than 2 schools. It will not be that much extra work beyond all the work you are going to surely do to prepare your SOP and WS (and getting those rec letters) as it is. Here's part of my reasoning. If you get into either Berkeley or Oxford, congrats, you can ride off into the sunset. But if you don't get into either, I don't think you've really learned anything about your materials since those two schools are super elite and selective, meaning there's sometimes more randomness to it. I'd apply to like at least 4, and spread them among the tiers so that you have a better barometer of where you are at no matter what happens that application season.

Thanks for the whole reply. But specifically, yes I will be attending Sunday and Monday and yes I am sure we will continue this conversation in person. Let me PM you.

Lots of good stuff here. All I can offer are a few points. I also have no interest in the argument about whether there should be a canon or not. As long as we live in any type of society with power relations that has something called, "Literary Studies," there will be a canon, period. 1. I don't think it's obvious to everybody that the canon was founded on imperialist, racist, and sexist lines. It may be obvious to you, but I think part of the struggle going on here is that some, even in the Humanities, would even deny, downplay, or even scoff at the suggestion that imperialism plays a role in literary studies. 2. It's not clear to me at least, that somebody who puts pressure on the canon (myself, for example) is against all forms of aesthetic valuation or aesthetics as a field of study though that seems like what some are arguing. 3. I am not sure what makes art art or who is in charge of saying art is art. Sure, you or I probably believe that Shakespeare is more beautiful than the Taco Bell menu, but we've both been trained in a certain tradition, history, culture, etc. The next question that comes to my mind, then, is why do we consider Shakespeare beautiful and what are the stakes of us trying trying to "convince each other." Also, what is "value nihilism" and why should I be afraid of it? I really don't know the answer to these questions and I hope somebody responds. I ask this to people in good faith and not as some kind of grad student rhetorical gesture.

-There are value judgements and then there are value judgements. Value judgements based on subjective notions masquerading as objective aesthetic valuations always make me very suspicious. And the fact that one or another enforcer (individual or institution) of these subjective notions is not aware of their role makes no difference to me. Close reading and absent minded reading aren't the only options. And I'd also argue that some absent minded reading might be just as important as some "close" reading. I've seen some things identified as "close reading" that were very absent minded and tunnel visioned. Shakespeare versus a Taco Bell menu. I guess it depends on what literary context you are talking about. I love Shakespeare, personally, too. One of my favorite authors of all time is Chaucer, so I'm not just somebody against older literature. But a Taco Bell menu might tell us a lot about culture that, in some contexts, a Shakespeare play cannot. I mean, just on a personal level, when I am drunk on a Friday night, a Taco Bell menu speaks to me personally in a way that Twelfth Night can't, and that isn't just because blurry vision makes it difficult to read Norton Editions.

I understand there are contexts outside of empire and ideological control, but are there contexts that operate independently of empire and ideological control. I'd say no. What plot?

First of all, what is a nihilistic abyss and why should I be avoiding it instead of possibly exploring it's productive capacities? I also don't understand what aesthetic value is in your context. If by aesthetic value you are implying that the canon is a set of texts that have been deemed, in some objective way, as having special aesthetic value than I would call shenanigans.

I would say there isn't such a thing as "good" or "bad" literature, and further that this doesn't mean that selection of texts is arbitrary. Texts are taught for many many reasons other than some systemic valuation based on "good" or "bad." It just bores me to rank literature, especially since the established rankings are almost entirely based on a context of empire and ideological control. Personally, it's just impossible for me to seal myself in a bubble and pretend this isn't the case. Texts are enjoyed, studied, written about or used in a classroom for reasons much more varied and complicated than their "aesthetic value"--if we can even say such a thing exists in a vacuum.

The better question might be whether there is even such thing as a canon. I know I am not saying anything others haven't heard, but I believe canons and the idea of them exist to reinforce power and/or epistemological coercion. I mean even look at the books that are canonized in the "multi-ethnic lit" or Queer realm. They often have (And here I realize I am being a bit simplistic and reductive, but...deal with it) similar ideological frameworks as traditional canonical works.

NRC has some WTF rankings too. Like there's some skew that makes certain rankings appear way way off. I know US news sucks, but at least it sort of passes the eye test on first glance. NRC has some wacky shit going on in it, and I don't even have the time to figure out what or why. And before somebody calls bias, the schools I figure to end up at are ranked about the same in each one.