echo449

Okay, I do not want to be a killjoy here, but have you considered other Master's programs? The Columbia program only offers, at best, a scholarship for tuition. Are you able to pay out of pocket for this degree, or will you be taking out loans for it? If you have a bunch of money saved, or can live with family while attending the program, that would make a difference. BUT! If you do not, then you should think about applying to funded Masters programs (e.g., Villanova or Maryland), or even PhD programs. Just to address some other random things in your post: Your extra-curricular publishing will look nice, but it's not going to be super helpful overall--academic publishing is much more important for our field than those places, though I do think they will make you a more interesting candidate, all things being equal. Most writing samples are 20-30 pages long. Your GPA matters a lot less than you think for the Columbia masters program...in large part because it is unfunded, and so is less competitive. Also, plenty of people get into top schools with GPAs that are imperfect; you have to remember that the quality of your scholarly writing and letters of rec can make up a lot of ground. Anyways, just to reiterate: please, please be aware of the financial costs involved in an unfunded degree.

I took 5 years (after a failed round of apps). I finished a thesis in the extra time, but did not add any academic programs. I also had two majors and three minors; i wouldn't say any of the extra academic work I did directly contributed to my acceptances my second time around, but they didn't hurt me the first time either. If your extra education will focus your research, then it is only for the better, especially since you can do it for free.

@QuercusV, if yr goal is to teach at the university level, you should consider PhD programs which have higher rankings (yada yada US News doesn't designate quality yada yada). In terms of faculty, Chicago has a lot of people working in visual culture and a major person in comics.

Eh, I think this depends on the field and the conference. Almost every talk I attended in undergrad came from prepared remarks; every conference i've attended in grad school as well. Sometimes you had very capable speakers speak from notes or use a powerpoint as a guide, but they were few and far between. For better or worse, much of the discipline does not agree with you, bhr.

I can vouch for the fact that there definitely are students working on Poco and the 19th century at Rutgers (we just admitted someone last year with that profile).

I think you'll have an easier time if you focus on programs with strong 19th century faculty and strong po-co, even if those po-co people arn't "in field"--your diss chair doesn't have to be both; you just need an enviroment where faculty are invested in those fields and could support you.

Oh! unræd's comment reminds me: many departments offer a funding package that is 5 or 6 on paper, with the understanding that you really need six or seven with the current market. So you'll see language like, "We fully fund our students for six years, and expect to offer an additional year of support." Typically that phrasing implies that everyone/almost everyone gets that year, and you can expect it barring another financial meltdown or bad progress on your part. The thing about that additional year is that it can come from a variety of things: a finishing fellowship, extra-teaching, an outside award, etc. So there's a little more hustle involved.

Both of those programs are fully funded. Almost all of the programs in the top 50 fund their students, and if you can't find information on the website, you can email the department for more information, assuming that it is unclear.

I basically agree with this. I think there are exceptions in the top 30 (Penn State, Vanderbilt), and I've seen arguments that some schools farther down the list place well regionally, but when you're in the application phase, thinking about placement maybe even trumps fit, depending on your personal situation.

My gut tells me that you should be looking at MA programs first. You have no coursework in English to show, and probably not close to the credit hours that most programs require. Good news tho! Many people on this board have applied to MAs, so they'll be able to help more than I can.

Yeah, I think this is pretty much wrong.

I don't know if you've made any decision yet, but: I would say you shouldn't take it. On dark nights, I find myself thinking of my other choices wistfully, even though I am overall happy with where I am. If you are having intense doubts now, before you've even started? I think that's a good way to set yourself up for a long term kind of questioning that will not be good for you overall. Of course, you know what's best for you, and R*** is not a bad program, and it's even kinda hip these days! So you would not be making a bad decision either way.

Can you give us more of a sense of the school? Does it fit your intellectual needs? Does it place people in your field, if not overall?

I would just say that, for the most part, Penn State is filled with wonderful, open people. The complications of admissions, as weirdly as they handle it, is not a reason to make some of the judgements I've seen in this thread. I was both accepted and denied from Penn State in my own applications, and I agree they handle the latter poorly. But, if you are applying with a BA, Penn State is a good program with good people, and I hope, if any of you are reapplying, you won't hold this against them. (I'm not currently at Penn State)

I mean, as one of the people who were slightly insulted by OP's characterization of grad school as a huge mistake, all I can say is that, like I intimated in my original response, for many of us going to grad school is not a step down but a step up. This isn't universally true, and maybe it isn't even true in the majority of cases, but it is true in my case, for my specific circumstances (& I'm attending a public university for my PhD). I'm not saying OP was wrong about the market, or that wages are "good enough." I was reacting more to the tendency to paint getting a PhD as a mistake in financial terms as incorrect. Having said this, I do think people need to think harder about stipends and what is or is not livable, and when I talk to friends of mine that are applying, I do stress to them that this is perhaps one of the most important things to think about when choosing between programs. Cuz OP is right that the market is awful, prospective students should be given more advice from professors (and perhaps this board) as to how to ensure that the 5-7 years they spend in a program won't be an undue burden.

Yeah, I'll just chime in to say that I would be worse off financially out of a PhD program right now, & that the insistence that a PhD is a uniformly bad career move is classist and awfully presumptuous of other people's financial situations. I would note, though, that I do in my personal life routinely discourage people applying to PhDs from applying to schools with stipends on the lower end.

I don't have a ton of time right now to respond, but my "gut" advice is that you need to figure these things out for yourself. Look at the top 50 programs on either the NRC or US News rankings, and pick out a few schools with faculty that you would want to work with by reading their profiles, then following up with an article or book chapter or two. I think it's important you do this on your own as this will help your applications to these schools, and, further, help you figure out your own interests. IMO, Rutgers might be a good fit (my own program, in all honesty), but I don't know you well enough to say whether or not it is appropriate. Best of luck to you!

I wouldn't worry too much about what you wear. I would advise you mostly to look clean and put together, but not necessarily even business casual. Honestly, if you've been admitted, they are selling you on the school, and, so long as you don't dress as if you couldn't give a shit to be there, then you'll be fine.

Honestly, I would just take classes as a non-degree student and use those for letters of rec.

Go for it!

I'm in English, and a lot of our faculty work with with/in comp lit, so I can answer some questions about classes/professors and info about the area/living, if you'd like.

If any Rutgers admits are floating around the forum today, feel free to PM me if you have any questions in advance of official communications! I'm a first year in the program doing 20th century things, and there are a few other people on grad cafe as well in different periods.

I mean, I think the difference in placement and opportunities offered by UCLA really makes a difference here. I don't know about your personal financial circumstances, but I would think UCLA students make due, unless the package for their gender program truly is unlivable...

What is your area of interest? I mean, you could read a lot generally, which is always useful, but maybe reading theory and criticism relevant to your area of study would be more useful.

I think it's really complicated. My own program has a surprisingly generous funding offer, with plenty of fellowship funding, but I'm not sure you can say it as simple as a commitment to the humanities so much as a bunch of factors (including a union, a high cost of living, and a tendency to attract commuters) that together influence the offer. Also, there's no reason to think that Yale, or whatever, has a higher commitment to the humanities; they just have more money generally. See the recent drama regarding the raiding of the Classics Department's funds for students by the general university budget to see just how much Yale cares about the humanities in particular.