echo449

I listed undergrad conference presentations when I applied to PhD programs. I was told that my CV was too small to be that picky about what did or did not go on it. I think that's pretty good advice; at the very least it shows that you've been doing "practice round" stuff.

I think money is a really important thing to think about, so it's really smart that you're considering it at this stage of the game. If a program does not offer you the money to live (bracketing MA programs because they are not as large a commitment), then you should not attend it. That sounds harsh, but the job market is terrible, and you are giving up years of income to go to graduate school. My program is on the higher end of pay (the 25k mark, or thereabouts), and I can tell you that as a single person with roommates I have a lot of money leftover for myself. I also live with people in my program--this cuts down on stuff like someone watching TV too loudly on nights when you need to work. Related to that: making friends isn't hard! The first term especially is a moment in which everyone is trying to be social to establish some kind of group. However, I have not met people outside of my department (with one exception). But I think this is kind of standard. It's not impossible to meet people in other departments, but you have to make an effort to do so. To soon for me to answer questions concerning networking, but I would say that, generally, the more people you know, the easier your life will be. Being known to the department is really helpful when it comes time to apply for competitive fellowships/find people for a committee/ ask people for different letters of rec.

Just to chime in to the Rutgers chorus, I'm a first year 20th century americanist and can answer questions w/r/t that over PM if you have any specific ones beyond what has already been answered. One thing that I can add is that next year will be particularly good in terms of courses offered for anyone interested in 20th century american or world lit.

So I think one way to look at the diversity statement for California is to think of it as another way to explore your work--for me, this gave me space to talk about the elided intersections of white and black poets in the mid-century, demonstrating my knowledge of the field and also an avenue for further study. Now, since yr medieval this is less easy for you, but I really think that's the best way to approach it if you can, since it signals that you are thinking about these issues in your work.

Showing that you are a serious scholar is much more important than showing you are a likable person. That being said, the tone of your SoP should not smell of arrogance or the sense that you've already learned all you need to learn and are ready to write your dissertation. If you are not yourself going to contribute demographically to diversity, you can still talk about how diversity informs your work (thinking specifically about the California school diversity essay). Break down your academic history, explain your interests cogently, and demonstrate that you have a basic knowledge of your field as it stands.

I mean, 1) you should be applying to good programs that will fund you (even if you are doing a Masters). So, 2), these programs will be more competitive, and, as such, you'll need people who can vouch for your performance in an English classroom. Of three recommenders, two should be from English, but a third from math may actually make you stand out as a well-rounded applicant (there is a fetishization of science backgrounds in our field, which may work to your advantage). However, applying with no english letters puts the program in a position where they have to just guess how you'll be in their environment, which is pretty risky, you know?

I think for Pitt you have to apply to English and Film jointly, no? It's an umbrella program that involves both film studies and a home department. (Source: I know people who go there, and considered applying myself during a moment of disciplinary crisis).

I know Berkeley and Irvine have taken steps to guarantee a base amount for all incoming students--UCLA has also always promised funding as well. The others I cannot speak to.

I really think professionalization and jobs (insofar as you can control those things at all in this market) is the way to look at things? So in your case, at least on paper, I would choose Berkeley before Santa Cruz. They have plenty of theory people milling about, and they have much better placement. Of course, feel free to ignore me if you feel like you'd be happiest at SC. Almost all of the top 20 has guaranteed funding, and I think this is true of the top 30 as well. It might behoove you to contact the schools and ask if you can apply without the subject--a grad student here (a big state school in the top 20) did not take his until he was admitted, and it was a formality, despite what the website said. Also, you NEED to pick an area of interest. It's okay to have side interests (I mentioned film in my SoP as something I was interested in pursuing further, for instance), but you need to really focus out one field that you want to situate yourself in. You arn't required to do that for the rest of your life; but it is how admissions works. Edit: Irvine is also lovely, and has a really, really friendly atmosphere.

I would just chime in and say you should apply to however many you can apply to without being angry with yourself for not applying to more. In other words, there is no right number.

Cuz you are in English, it really isn't that important. What is important is being able to show the admissions committee that they don't have to worry about you not passing the exam at all, which means college level work in the language should suffice. (This is less true of medievalists)

There actually are national fellowships for humanities PhD students, but they are rarer than they were even a decade ago. For example, Mellon used to have a national fellowship that no longer exists; this dead website tells you the status of this award: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/jacobjavits/index.html. But they do exist! For example, a friend of mine doing a PhD in history won a national humanities fellowship that college sophomores were eligible to apply for--he was granted a 30k fellowship to be paid out over the 5 years of his program (I forget the name).

That's fair. I, as a lit person of a relatively young age, intentionally chose schools that, despite a relatively secure area of interest, would support me changing my focus if that issue arose.

I can help a little! In terms of what you can do on your year off besides working on your application materials: Admissions committees don't really care about what you did on your year off. I went straight through; both of my roommates took a year off in between. If you are taking a year off, it's probably worth doing whatever you want/can. This will be your last chance for 5-8 years to do you, and that's pretty valuable. Otherwise, the difference between an applicant with an MA and an applicant with a BA is really a different expectation of focus. For example, in my program, MA students spend less time in coursework, and have roughly a semester less funding (tho, I've never heard of that being a problem). However, despite this, it is worth trying to be as specific and articulate about a *possible* project as possible. You won't be held to it, but you'll only benefit from sounding knowledgable about your area. Also, like unraed, most of my cohort does not have an MA. Otherwise...I mean, it's kind of hard to say, haha. Do you have any specific concerns beyond those above? Perhaps we might be able to address those too.

I can answer that last question for Ramus (though he may have additional insight): so, yes, a program may turn down a strong medievalist because they had 2 other medievalists, even if, say, the 19th century americanist that got an offer wasn't as good on paper. A large part of this is just that a human being can only supervise so many people at once--this also makes admissions even hazier since restrictions on who can take what and when are not easily available to prospective applicants. Some programs are more formal about this than others.

Ramus is very correct to say that sweeping institutional commitments to theory are pretty rare these days. Certainly there are certain hot subjects/ interests that coincide across the department, but that's also true of the discipline as a whole. For example, I was surprised at the sheer amount of Latour/New Materialism that I am engaging this year--but it does make a lot of sense that professors would try and organize seminar topics around the poles that are attracting current research. No one is really "against" New Criticism anymore--for most of the discipline, new crit is more a historical formulation now than a body that needs to be rejected. Chicago has a bunch of famous theorists on faculty, and the two that immediately come to mind are Berlant and Brown, so looking at their work might give you a sense of what kind of theoretical approaches are big there. Though, again, they are not really representative of the department as a whole. One thing i also want to add: At many places, a creative writer, unless they are someone like Fred Moten (who has a PhD in literary studies and a substantial scholarly career), cannot be part of your committee/ you will be discouraged from working with them if they can be on the committee. As such, and I admittedly don't know anything about Paul Muldoon, I would be wary about choosing a program cuz of the poets that they have hired, though that might make an already interesting place even more enticing.

Haha it's cool. No problem! Good coffee in the area was one of the first things I sought out when I was exploring campus in June haha.

Good news! Hidden Grounds is a little off-campus (~5 minute walk from Murray) on Easton, and it is probably what you're looking for. There's also QC in Highland Park (the one I mentioned above) tho that's 20 minutes away so less convenient.

I found a pretty great coffee place two blocks from my apartment, so I'm pretty much set for the next 6 years. (Classes also start for me on the 1st, and so my life is Ikea manuals and train rides to see people at the moment.)

Small note about Pittsburgh--the English PhD is named that more because of the department's past than where it is currently. If you look at the department's webpage for recently completed PhDs, you'll see that the literature students are completing pretty normal English projects (not that there is anything wrong with that; this is only to say that the title of the PhD is misleading).

Eh, you know what, nevermind.

Gotcha. Can I ask why you're looking at literature departments instead of continental philosophy programs? I think Irvine is a good fit for you because people in English and comp lit there really are theory buffs (though the department culture is changing, inching back to literary texts first and foremost), but does UCLA have the same emphasis? If you're doing English, why English? Or are you doing a mix of interdisciplinary programs . . .

Duke Lit and Minnesota's cultural studies program should be added to your list, if theory specific programs are what you're looking for. Cornell is a theory heavy place (or at least was at one point, though it still hosts the School for Criticism and Theory). Also, UC Santa Cruz's Literature program might work for you, especially since you can work with the related History of Consciousness department. SUNY Buffalo also has a large theory group, although many of those people do theory and poetry, and it isn't clear to me how much of your interests involve literature as such.

Huh! That's interesting. Consider my advice appropriately caveated then!

I would stay far, far away from an online degree if you eventually want to go one to get your PhD. It will not be viewed in the same way by a normal admissions committee, and, in all likelihood, you won't get an education that is as rigorous a preparation as what you would receive at an in-person masters.