Stately Plump

You never know! Hopefully you get some good news soon! Best of luck!

Thanks! I loved the "space" of the department (I mean, obviously) and the faculty were amazing. I'm so excited!

If I am accepted (which I can't imagine I am) I will be denying. It would have been great, but it's taken soooo fricken long that I've already accepted another offer. I will tell them, if I am accepted, that I very well may have gone, but it took too long to hear back. If they need this long to sort through their applications, then they need to make the deadline earlier. It's not fair for people trying to make decisions about other schools, and it's not fair for other schools who are waiting to hear back about admitted students.

Whether you can defer is up to the school. I had a similar question, because I was applying to both schools and fellowships, and I got varied responses from different schools. Some said it would be no problem, others said no, and others weren't sure but thought it would be fine. Ask the departments where you've applied, and they will be able to give you more information.

Boston University I just accepted their offer. Hasn't hit me yet.

Thanks Good luck with your choices!

I don't think it was discrimination. I think it's just the realities of how difficult the job market it. I mean, when you get 200 applications for 1 job opening (which is what they had, in my example above), how do you pick the best one? What I was saying in my example was that it wasn't like they had all these applicants but only 1 or 2 stood out. They ended up with about 30 that really stood out, and from there narrowed it down to 12 that they wanted to take. Once they got to those 12, like I said, everyone looked identical. So when they were trying to pick people from those 12, they weren't going to pick someone who had been outside academia for a few years over someone who has been completely immersed since starting graduate school (especially because the person who had been outside academia for a few years didn't offer any reasons as to why; it was a mystery to the job search committee). I don't believe that, if you've taken a few years off from academic life that it means you'll never get a job. You never know what might happen, and different schools have different needs at different times. The point of all of this isn't to discourage people from doing anything outside of academia ever, it's just to point out how difficult this process can be. Plan on doing everything you can to make yourself the most competitive applicant you can be, and try not to have anything that might be held against you. I don't mean to start an argument and I hope I haven't offended anyone. It was never my intention, but sometimes it's hard to judge a person's tone over the internet

I just accepted an offer. It hasn't hit me one bit. I can't believe it's actually happening!

(this was as close as I could get to "aw gee thanks *embarrassed*" face...) Thanks! I love the support on here as well! And I'm sure both of you are poised to dominate as well! Best of luck!

Yes. Rejected for full grant to Finland. Not too upset, because it means I get to start my PhD program one year sooner Good luck with your grant! I hope you get it!

This post was from I found the link contained within the quoted text to be enormously helpful.

If I had been accepted to any of the NYC schools to which I applied (NYU, CUNY, Columbia), I would almost certainly have gone. But I <3 NYC, so that's just me

WHY DOES SWEDEN KNOW BUT NOT FINLAND????!!!??!?? ARRRGGGHHHH!!!! ksorrydonefreakingoutnow

It's almost impossibly difficult to find a job at a research university in either the UK or the US. And when I say impossibly difficult, what I mean is that almost all of us will not get those jobs. For evidence look at some top programs' placement rates; while there are some research universities on there, most of them are small-midsize schools where the faculty members are primarily teachers. R1 positions happen, but I wouldn't count on it. What I meant was that, with the realities of the job market, I have heard that some students who attend schools in the UK graduate with no teaching experience, which means they can't get a job at a small or midsize school, because those schools are concerned with the applicant's preparation as a teacher. I don't know this from my own experience, but I have heard it. And then, of course, even if you get a job at a research university, you will still have to do some teaching for your first few years. My impression is that going to school in the UK will definitely prepare you to remain in the UK, but you may have a tougher time getting a job in the US (not because their programs are worse--many of them are far better--but because their system is different). Spots are so tight that schools want to select the professor they think will be the best fit for their department. If they have any suspicion that they may be selecting a faculty member who won't be familiar with their system, that may be a disadvantage to you. Additionally, if you are prepared primarily for a job in the UK, that seriously limits the places to which you might apply (i.e., all the schools in the US). Again, take all of this with a grain of salt. I'm only relaying other things I've heard elsewhere. Getting a degree in the UK would be a phenomenal experience, and I'm sure the quality of education would be superb. And I'm only trying to offer some thoughts; I don't, by any means, wish to persuade people one way or the other

Can it be both? It's Buck Mulligan for sure, and I think it's pretty funny (that is, if I'm allowed to think my own jokes are funny; I am, after all, a nerd)

The main con of graduate work in the UK is that teaching opportunities are extremely limited, which, in turn, limits your chances of getting a job upon graduating. I don't have experience with their system, but perhaps others can speak more to that. Teaching, for me, is a huge concern, because--while I would love a job at a research university--ultimately I just want to be able to support my family. I don't want to approach the job market with any disadvantages (i.e., not having teaching experience as a graduate student).

Yeah, it was a very, very attractive department for me. The Renaissance Center and ELR are obviously awesome opportunities. I definitely sensed, while I was there, that the early modern students occupy a somewhat privileged space in the department.

I would adjunct. Stay in academia; I just spoke with a professor who had served on a job search committee, and he was saying that, when you have so many applicants for one position, you get to a spot where you have 10-12 that look identical on paper. He said that, based on their applications, letters of rec, CVs, etc., he would have been perfectly happy with any of them. What they did was look for ANY REASON they could find to not interview someone. He mentioned specifically that one person had been out of academia for a few years, and there wasn't any ostensible reason as to why, so they didn't interview her. She was perfectly qualified, but they had to choose three people out of twelve to interview, so they tried to cut anyone they could. With the job market as bad as it is, I would say that the wise decision is always the decision that will put you in a better spot coming out the other end. On the other hand, just to play devil's advocate, "real world" experience could be valuable if you can't find a job after your PhD. If you have some experience doing other work, you might be in a better spot than some of your peers. Tough choice, good luck with it

I know I just posted, but I also wanted to say that lit crit would be very helpful in applying to grad schools. Grad programs are much more theory intensive than undergrad, and going into graduate school with an introduction to different theoretical approaches will definitely be beneficial. If you can frame your research interests within theoretical interests, particularly those that the various programs are interested in, you will give yourself a leg up in the application process.

I believe that many comp lit programs expect you to be fluent in your other languages. You will be expected to take courses in that language from your first semester. For example, if you are doing Russian and English literature, you will take a course in Russian literature and read those texts in the original Russian--not in translation--from the very beginning. I had been considering comp lit, but when I looked into the expectations, I realized I wasn't prepared for that at all. As for interdisciplinary work within English, I think you'll find that almost every department strongly encourages it. As graduate students face an increasingly difficult job market, many departments are considering unique and alternative ways to help their graduate students stand out, and this often includes doing interdisciplinary work. I majored in Sociology and English, and when I mentioned this to one of my prospective graduate programs, the professor got really excited, told me how she started with an interest in poli sci, and mentioned that she thought that would give me some great opportunities. With translation in particular, there is always new work being done translating texts. I know you mention that your particular interests are in contemporary poetry, but as a prospective early modernist, I know that there are some particularly interesting texts from the Renaissance that have hitherto gone untranslated, which can make for an extremely interesting thesis/dissertation project. My advisor transcribed a bunch of letters written in the early modern hand (unaccessible to someone not trained in Renaissance penmanship) and included these letters in her first book. I would think that similar things are being done with more contemporary work. So I would say yes, there is definitely room for translation-type work to be done.

From what I've seen, there aren't a whole of schools that openly report rejecting students based on GRE scores. Most will say something like "we have no fixed cut-offs, but most successful applicants score above X percentile." In my experience, they are being completely honest when they say that. I'm sure some programs say that and then dump applicants with low GRE scores, but I also truly believe that other schools look at the entire file; if they are impressed with your writing sample and SOP and think you are a good fit, they won't reject you just because of your GRE scores. The first time I took the GRE, I scored a 570 in the verbal and 4.5 in the writing. I retook it and did much better, but those initial lousy scores didn't hold me back. I did terribly on the subject test; I'm in the 40% percentile or something absurd like that. I currently have four schools to choose from and am on the wait-list at another. EDIT to add: I was scoring in the 650-670 range on the practice tests I took (I think I took three). I was devastated when I got a 570. The second time, I was scoring in the 570-590 on the practice tests (I think I took two) and ended up doing much better. So I have some doubts about the practice tests. Also, the second time I took it I didn't study that much before and ended up doing much better. I found that, the first time, I actually OVER studied, and it freaked me out psychologically. I was so nervous I couldn't sleep the night before, and I was sooo stressed during the whole test. The second time, I barely studied at all, outside the practice tests, and was completely nonchalant about it. I wasn't expecting to do well, and was planning on just getting it done with and moving on. I found that this attitude really helped by ability to approach the test, and I ended up scoring well on it. Just food for thought

I emailed Rachel about my application to Finland. I explained that I have to notify my graduate program of whether or not I will be attending, so I asked if I could have some notification about my status. She said that emails will be sent by the end of this week. I assume she was speaking specifically to Finland, as I mentioned that is where I had applied. This probably doesn't help anyone here, but I figured I'd share it anyway.

What do you mean by umbrella programs? Like Chicago's MAPH?

Like I said before, I would definitely second the advice about not focusing too much on the GREs. Do well on them if you can, yes, and present the most complete package to schools that you can. However, as everyone has said, the writing sample and SOP are much more important. If you have lousy GREs (and by lousy I mean still good, just not stellar) but a good writing sample and good SOP, you might get accepted. If you ace the GRE but your writing sample and SOP are mediocre at best, you will not be accepted. Simple as that. Adcomms won't make be saying to themselves, "Well, her writing sample was decent, but her GREs are 99%, so let's take her." They very may well say, "Well, her GREs weren't 99%, but her writing sample proves that she is overly qualified to be doing graduate level work." In short, the GRE is the worst predictor adcomms have of judging the applicant's ability to perform at a graduate level. In fact, the reason a lot of schools require the GRE at all is because their financial aid packages are coming from the dean, and the dean wants some kind of quantitative evaluation of the applicants. I know a lot of this has been said before, but it's worth repeating. Focus on your writing sample and SOP. Do as well as you can on the GREs and move on.