DorindaAfterThyrsis

Can we compile a list of the relevant factors to consider when picking between admissions offers? The obvious considerations (money, ranking, location, etc) are obvious, but since so far both of my programs are coming out pretty even on all those measures, I'm wondering if people have suggestions for some less-obvious, but possibly game-changing, factors to consider which will help me break this stalemate. I know most of you will cite "fit" as the most important consideration, but since "fit" is something that's impossible to determine on anything other than a very superficial level (i.e. Are there professors in the program who are doing work that I find interesting and that could support my work?) until you actually enroll in the program and experience what it's all about, I'm looking for some other metric to base a decision on. Obviously, the adcomms at the programs I got in to think I "fit", and I don't really have any way of verifying or disproving their suspicion.... I've visited both programs and had equally excellent, but very different, experiences at both. Not helpful. I can't afford to visit either school again (though I would love to). So. How the hell are you lovely people deciding where you're going to go? What am I not giving enough consideration to? What could give one program an edge over the other that I'm not realizing? Also, if you'd like to make my decision for me, you're welcome to.

I'm not you, and I don't know anything about your programs, but my honest opinion (and that's what you're asking for, right?) is that yes, you would be crazy to turn down a PhD offer for an MA if (and this is a bigbigbig "if") a PhD is your ultimate goal. MA's are swell for testing out the grad school waters (a smart route for people who aren't sure if grad school is for them), or for biding your time and staying in the academic loop while you build up your application after a round of rejections (totally valid and smart)....but if you've been offered a path towards your ultimate goal, why shirk it? This isn't exactly an arena in which gambling usually offers high rewards. I know you say that you have a better "fit" at the MA school, and that several factors dissuade you from choosing the PhD program, but I caution you from basing too much on your pre-application research. Being in a program is VERY different from evaluating it from the outside, and (unfortunately) you can't possibly know where you are going to "fit" until you're there. You liked the PhD school enough to apply in the first place, and you imply that they clearly want you there (which is a big, big factor, imho), and the funding is good...I, personally, would have a REALLY hard time turning that down in favour of a path that looks shiny on the outside, but has no guarantees of getting you where you ultimately want to go. I'm a big risk-taker, and rarely shy away from following my "gut", but if I was in your situation, I think my head would win out. I'm being quite blunt, since you were soliciting opinions, but of course this is only my personal train of thought on the subject and, like others have said, you need to do what feels right for you and what you think has the best chance of making you happy in both the short and the long term. It's a tough choice, good luck with your decision!

An anecdote to calm your Kermit flailing before you injure yourself : One of the schools I was accepted to asks (demands? forces?) all of the faculty in a given field to get in touch with their prospectives via phone or e-mail after acceptances have gone out. This practice is, I assume, designed to pump up the prospective students' egos, entice them to attend the recruitment visit, make themselves available for questions, and otherwise assist with the recruitment process (it's all horribly flattering...until you get the fourth profusely complimentary e-mail and realize that this is clearly a departmental directive, and not a sign of your inherent brilliance). Anywho, the third such letter I received from this program (and from a Prof who I am utterly enamoured with, intellectually) bore the subject line "[Name of Institution], Congrtaulatons!" Shock! Horror! Brilliant Professors make typos, too! I, for one, was thrilled to discover this. In my e-mailed reply, I did the kind-hearted thing and corrected his mistake in the subject line of my reply...but I will always have the original message as proof that no one is infallible, even in academia. I imagine this may come in handy at various points during the next 6 years...

This is totally anecdotal, but I have encountered a seemingly very high number of people (given the sample size) who have completed Chicago's MAPH at the visit weekends I've been to lately, both within the cohort of perspectives and (even more so) within the ranks of the current PhD students. If nothing else, it seems like a program that has a great deal of success in getting people into good/great PhD programs eventually. Of course, my "study" (based solely on asking a shitload of people where they did their MA's) was hardly scientific.....

Should I be directing my letter declining the offer to Lissette Roararbaugh (from whose e-mail address the letter was sent), or Thomas Augst (the DGS who "signed" the e-mail)? I'm assuming the latter, but just wanted to double check on the convention here...

Yep, I got offered the unfunded MA, too.... Not even remotely considering it, but I do appreciate the opportunity to send my own "Thanks, but no thanks" rejection e-mail. I've received enough of them in the past month that I should be pretty adept at writing my own by now

You are welcome to your interpretation.

While I generally support drinking in all its forms (including the art of excessive drinking), I've always maintained that drunk posting is second only to drunk dialing in terms of potential for disastrous consequences. Firstly, the idea that my view of this process is "romantic" because I was "successful" is rather flawed. My view of the process is a direct result (and very close to a direct quotation) of candid conversations I have had with members of admissions committees. While it may be pure hearsay, and an egregiously small sample size to be a definitive survey, it is certainly not "romantic". Also, in order to take a "romantic" and rose-coloured view of the situation, I would first have to consider myself successful which, as many of my posts in other threads can attest, is hardly the case. I did not get in to most of the programs where I considered myself a good "fit", nor did I get in to my top choice. I'm hardly inclined to look at this process in a self-congratulatory fashion. While I appreciate your earnestly egalitarian stance (and your tangential treatise on the social conditions for literacy), that hardly speaks to the point I was attempting (albeit unsuccessfully, it seems) to make. I never suggested that one could "assure success through close writing", so I'm not sure where that assertion comes from. I was in my post trying to suggest that the application process is one in which a great deal of thought is invested on both ends of the process, which I offered as a contrary to the prevailing opinion among many on these boards that the process is merely a series of hoops to be jumped through, or that there is some "secret" to writing a successful SOP, and other similar notions. I was simply attempting to re-humanize the faceless readers of our labours, and re-position the role of the applicant as bearing the onus to present themselves as potential scholars, rather than as sycophants (which is a sentiment that I see lurking in many statements around these forums). You are absolutely correct when you say that "you can do everything perfectly in the application process and be rejected". Nowhere did I espouse anything contrary to that. The take-away from my post was intended to be, and apologies if my attempts to couch it in gentler language made it indescipherable, that the profs who sit on adcomms have agendas about who they want to work with, and their reasons may or may not be fair/tangible/expressible/rational/etc. If that person doesn't show up in your SOP or WS, you are shit out of luck. Professor wanting to work with you and willing to fight with other adcomm members for you = fit. Since we can't know in advance what they're wanting in any particular school or season, our best/only bet is to offer our best and most honest work and hope that we happen to be the kind of thinker they're looking for. Assuming we are providing our best work, the kind of thinker we are should be evident in our materials. If we get in, we're in a place that wants the real us (not a watered-down or over-varnished version of us). If we don't get in, we're not stuck in a place that doesn't want the real us. Small succor, but there it is. My statement in no way suggests that adcomms always choose the "best" candidates (and I'm certainly not sure wtf the "best" candidate would look like), nor does it suggest that they always make the "right" decisions (if, as some people in this thread seem to, we equate "making the right decision" with "choosing students who finish the program", which seems a rather narrow rubric). It simply attempts to remind people complaining about the seeming arbitrariness or "invalidity" of the concept of "fit" that it is something to which adcomms give serious thought, and (if you're buying into the inherently subjective process of higher education) something to which we applicants need to pay attention. Fit matters, and the way you present yourself in you application materials is the only way (and I would argue a valid way, but that's another debate) the adcomms have of determining fit. "Fit" does not equal "smartness", "qualification", or "general awesomeness"....it just means something about your work clicks with at least one adcomm member to the point where they're willing to go to bat for you. Like I said, there's no magic bullet. I'm not entirely sure where you got "undying and romantic faith in meritocracy and my own awesomeness" from that, but I hope that clears things up. As for my "regressive, American, conservatism", I'll just say that I'm a Canadian, and ascribe the rest to your drinking.

I echo a lot of what people here have said, especially those that have pointed out that fit is NOT an arbitrary/alchemical category, but is actually a qualification made by real, living people (professors), and not some mechanical beast called "The AdComm". The people determining "fit" are scholars and human beings with real interests and real agendas in terms of who they want to be working with for the next six years. While the specific minutiae of "research interests" outlined in an SOP might not correspond directly with a current faculty member's work, and will certainly transform and morph over the course of the program, what the faculty reading applications are actually looking at is a student's approach to literature, and their approach to research. How do you frame problems? What types of problems are interesting to you? The way a prospective student poses questions is, I think, much more important than the specific questions they pose, and is certainly more important than name-dropping and "proving" ones learnedness. These are, obviously, not the types of things that can be addressed by the sort of "job posting" type of approach that is being proposed here. Even if such an endeavor were undertaken by schools, the problem of "fit" within a given category would still apply. Long story short: the fact that one's interests are bound to change during the course of a program does not in any way invalidate the importance of intellectual "fit". It is our job as applicants to ensure that the materials we submit (SOP and WS being the ones we have control over) demonstrate not simply our ability to sychophantically name-drop trendy theorists and professors, but our ability to frame compelling problems (in the SOP) and (in the WS) to tackle those problems in a productive, nuanced, and interesting way. There's a reason that these are the materials that make up an application. Professors of English are, by nature, excellent close readers. Our job is to provide application materials that stand up to rigorous close reading. That is, in my mind at least, a pretty adequate way of assessing one's suitability for a particular program. The (seemingly popular) notion that the application process is some sort of code that needs to be cracked is troubling: would you really want to spend six years studying under a group of people who are so easily hoodwinked (or so completely apathetic) that your ability to "jump through hoops" is the thing that gets you in to Grad School? Write good materials, be honest in describing what gets your intellectual juices flowing, and trust that the people reading your materials are also being honest in assessing whether or not you fit into their program. If, after submitting your best and most honest work, they deem that you don't fit, chances are you probably don't. Apply elsewhere until you find where you do fit. There are no magic bullets here. Sorry.

Congratulations on your success! I also study Early Modern/Renaissance poetry, though Milton falls at the opposite end of my interest timeline (I'm more of a Sidney, Donne, Marvell, Milton kind of gal). To be honest, I think prospective Grad students are not really the best resources for you in answering this particular question To be blunt, none of us have any more idea than you do what being a Miltonist at either Princeton or Harvard is like. I think your best course of action should be to take advantage of the knowledge of people at the other end of the graduate school spectrum (i.e. Professors). Survey some of your current profs, whose opinion you trust, to get a feel for where each program lies along that ever-changing and oh-so-subjective spectrum of "Peer Perception" (make sure you get a variety of opinions on this). Ask a current mentor who they would like to study with, given the opportunity. Take all opinions with large grains of salt, and be sure to correct for institutional bias and latent inferiority complexes. Also, get acquainted with the Renaissance faculty at both programs (through e-mail and especially at the visiting weekends). Ask lots of questions. Be proactive about ensuring that you can do the kind of work you want to do and be supported in the kind of work you want to do at either program. If you have access to current grad students in either program (the DGS can and usually will provide you with a list of students working in your area who are willing to make themselves available to queries from prospectives), ask them specific questions about the availability of resources, quality of advising, and usefulness of courses in your specific field of interest. Browse graduate course catalogs from previous years and see what course are actually being taught by your POIs and others. Bottom line, you have two excellent choices. You can't really choose "wrong" in terms of prestige or quality of education. Therefore, assuming the $$ is comparable at both programs, your choice comes down to your personal preference in regards to the advising style and/or likability of the profs you'll be working with. Go to the visit days. Meet profs. Talk to them. Find out who you "click" with. Choose that school. Become a fucking Milton rock star. Seriously, you can't go wrong here. I look forward to reading your work in the future!

Alcohol. Lots and lots of alcohol. (Strangely, this "celebration" plan is remarkably similar to the "abject despair" plan I've been operating under for going on 8 weeks now. My liver hurts.)

I've still heard nothing form NYU. I wrote them off as a rejection a month ago....but apparently, they're not even going to bother to reject me? Ouch.

Very, very, very overdue hydro bill. ...... Discard.

I'm sure we all know this one, but I couldn't resist.... Just replace the "B" with an "M"

Just to subvert the overly-cautious political correctness that is in danger of devouring this thread (and of which the above statement is a prime example), I feel the need to point out that an MA is, quite literally, an inferior degree. This is not a judgement, or name-calling, or rudeness, or anything of that nature. It is a statement of fact. An M.A. is a less-advanced degree than a PhD, and a more advanced degree than a BA. That's just the nature of degrees. Academia is one of the few bastions left in which hierarchies are so blatantly and gleefully entrenched and enforced (for good or for ill), and if you're pursuing study within the academy at any level you are implicitly buying into and reproducing that hierarchy. Trying to suggest that different titles and degrees are somehow "equal" when they clearly are not demonstrates a concession to blandly inoffensive language at the expense of accuracy. A degree, regardless of the level, is not in any way a comment on the worth or value of the person holding or not holding it; it is simply an acknowledgement of the completion of a given amount of advanced study (to a greater or lesser degree) in a given area. Therefore, I don't at all consider it "insensitive" or "rude" for the OP to be asking the question he asked, nor do I consider any of the responses posted thus far to be so either. If the OP's original plan was a PhD, and that plan didn't work out, then applying for an MA is the definition of a back-up plan or last resort (though the latter might be a touch hyperbolic ). An MA is very literally a step along the way to a PhD, in the same way that a BA is a step along the path to an MA. This is in no way to suggest that a terminal MA (or a terminal BA, for that matter) is without value, or that those people who are seeking solely a terminal MA or who are getting an MA on the way to an eventual PhD are in any way "inferior". That would be ridiculous. However, it is not ridiculous or rude or insensitive to state that the degree itself is inferior. That's just a fact, not a personal judgement. We all want what we want, and we get it however we can. Why anyone should take umbrage with this is beyond me, and asking posters on the forums to censor themselves to the degree that Starlajane is suggesting seems to cater excessively to the sensitivity of a few at the expense of defeating the purpose of the forum (which, in my view, is to exchange information openly and honestly). The OP shouldn't be asked to apologize that his original goals were more or less ambitious than any other poster's. Just my $0.02 (obviously), no offense intended

Well, my season of waiting is officially over (save for a few rejections making their way to me via snail mail). Final record: 2/10. If my hockey team went on a streak where they were 2-8, I would be absolutely flipping the pool. Trying not to let my sadness over the NO's outweigh my elation over the YESses.....but it's hard! I think it's contrary to my genetic make-up to think positively. Both my acceptances came VERY early in the season, so I think my feeling of sadness is exacerbated by the fact that my initial joy of being accepted had already been replaced by stress and anxiety by the time my rejections started rolling in.....and the string of 7 big, impersonal no's without that remaining happiness buffer was...painful, to say the least. I think I need to spend some time re-discovering the wonderful things that attracted me to my acceptances in the first place, rather than dwelling on the wonderful elements of the programs that didn't want me. Perspective readjustment is very, very necessary. I'm glad it's over. Wish I would have ended up with a few more options, but grateful to come out on the other side alive, and with a shred (a very small shred) of sanity.

"Those are my best days, when I shake with feare" - J.D. Holy Sonnet XIX Also, (a holdover from my dance career): "...and your very flesh shall be a great poem and have the richest fluency not only in its words but in the silent lines of its lips and face and between the lashes of your eyes and in every motion and joint of your body" -Whitman,Preface to Leaves of Grass

Greetings from LaGuardia, home of the $8 WiFi! Signs that Dorinda is Not Smart Enough For Grad School, #321: Failure to exchange Canadian currency before entering the United States coupled with failure to eat breakfast before leaving Canada results in a recruitment weekend starting off on a (very) empty stomach.

Dudes, I'm supposed to be on a plane to Durham in 6 hours, and I haven't even found my suitcase, let alone started packing it.....

Ditto. I want my rejection, already!

I must say, StatelyPlump, that your innate ability to use sunglasses to express such a wide range of emotion is truly remarkable, and one of my favourite features of these boards. I, for one, think that this fact alone qualifies you as a Harvard scholar. (<--- sunglasses to show solidarity....and to prevent myself from being blinded by your awesomeness)

This is interesting (and disturbing), because SO MANY of the things I've heard about Hyde Park (I've never been there...or to Chicago) revolve around the fact that the university is a tiny bubble of wealth surrounded by "sketchy" areas, and that it's a crime-ridden and dangerous place to live (see the "Chicago" thread in the city guide portion of this forum for many examples of this). I take this all with a grain of salt because 1) I've not lived a sheltered life, so my idea of what "sketchy" and "dangerous" means is a little different than some peoples, and 2) I think you're right, obviously, that many people use "poor" or "rough" or "dangerous" as (rather transparent) euphenisms for "black". Not everyone does this, obv, but some definitely do. I'm interested to see how this "rough" neighbourhood compares to my current "rough" neighbourhood (which is not actually rough...at all....but has a very high number of mentally ill, poor, and new immigrant residents, and is thus universally touted as "sketchy").

Thanks for the info about the area. I look forward to experiencing it this weekend! The concerns I expressed have more to do with the "cut-throat" intellectual environment described earlier in the thread (as opposed to literal throat-cutting ). I live in a pretty interesting (read: poor) area right now, and so I'm not too fazed by talk of "high-crime" or "ghettos" (other people's phrases) or any of that shit (which tends to surround talk of Chicago in particular, but also Durham a little). I'm super poor myself, and have always lived in "rough" neighbourhoods since moving to the city more than 8 years ago, so I don't really find myself bothered by the prospect of living in a less-than-pristine area. Low-income areas don't scare me......because I'm a low-income type of gal. I appreciate your input, personally (despite all my melodramatic whingeing ). I will ultimately make up my mind based on my experience during the visit, and the advice of my current profs, but I definitely find insight of those who know about the program and area helpful in framing/processing my own experience and understanding of the program/area.

It looks like last year all notifications went out on the same day (how very civilized of them!), so regardless of outcome we should all know soon. Of course, the results survey also indicates that they did e-mail (not phone) notifications last year, so the above statement could be irrelevant.

I will absolutely take you up on that offer, lyoness. Thanks! First, however, I need to peel my ass of these boards and get my damn paper done (well, started actually.... ). Otherwise, I'm not going to graduate at all and I simply wont need to worry about where the hell to go next year!