hawkeye7269

Jewish, I think. But I couldn't really tell while I was there, there was this massive cathedral in the way.

I was just looking at the Google Doc and saw Catholic University and thought, "Hey, who else is going there?" It was exciting! Then I realized it was just my acceptance...*facepalm*

I'm very sneaky. And I wrote a thesis on John Milton, which definitely helped.

Catholic University of America, Ph. D, Renaissance Literature. SO. EXCITED.

I'm going to be starting at Catholic University of America in the fall, and I'm (totally lost) when it comes to knowing anything about the area the school is in, what sort of thing to be looking for in terms of housing, etc. I've looked at some of CUA's online resources, but they're slim pickins'. So I suppose my question is this: does anyone know much about safe neighborhoods in the vicinity of CUA, and what sort of rent prices I might be looking at there? Thanks!

I have a BS in Biology and BA in history, and I'm starting a Ph. D in English literature in the fall. Because I just wanted to try EVERYTHING.

I'm still waiting on English, which I'm fairly certain means "no." I don't mind the rejection, just SEND it already so I can accept another offer. Not that I would say no if Notre Dame asked me to come, haha.

Once you actually get to the application, it's all just one window/program, which is pretty widely used by schools. So that won't be too bad! But yeah, aren't all college websites bad? Notoriously so?

I was notified of my funding along with the acceptance, because I got a TAship (which is an awkward word). So they outlined the tuition remition, stipend, etc, right there in the initial email. Cardinal Station doesn't have any of that information, though, so I imagine whatever funding you get won't appear on there until well on in the process - you'll likely hear by email or phone first. Good luck with all that! Are you very interested in going to CUA? What's your area?

See, I like that area of literature. I'm a Miltonist in terms of my primary interest, but I still love 19th century American, and the earlier stuff. I'm from New England, so I spent a lot of time learning all that stuff growing up, and coming to love writers like Melville and Fenimore Cooper. So I definitely appreciate and enjoy what you research. I actually have been accepted at Catholic, and I plan on going. Any word for you yet?

Congratulations on both acceptances! I'm also a Milton sort of fellow, so when I was choosing schools to apply to, I had a special eye out for Miltonists of note at various schools. So I can tell you that, at Harvard, Gordon Teskey is the Miltonist of note, and he's rather well known. He's published a book, "Delirious Milton," which I have not read, but I have been told is of middling quality. Nonetheless, he's well respected, and I believe he edited the latest Norton's edition of Milton. By contrast, I never found a compelling Miltonist down at Princeton - there may be one as a special lecturer or somesuch, but there's no professor there who lists Milton as a primary interest. I hope that's helpful. Perhaps we'll be crossing paths some years down the line at a Milton conference. Good luck with your decision, and do tell us what you eventually resolve to do. Cheers!

To answer multiple threads of conversation at once: I don't have an MA, just the BS/BA. But I don't feel that it particularly hindered my applications; just made for a slightly different one. If it's what you want, there's no reason not to shoot directly for the Ph. D. What's the worst that happens? You don't get in, and go to one of the MA programs you applied to as a backup. I talked to my POI after I got accepted at the school I want to go to; we talked on the phone for about 45 minutes - he was awesome! Very kind, very generous with his time, willing to listen to me babble like a giddy schoolgirl for a while. He answered all my questions, offered some advice, we talked about John Milton (sooo cool). As to the post acceptance depression - don't worry about it, guys! You got in, thats all that matters. You'll conquer with hard work, not just talent - really, talent only gets you so far anyway. It's the application of talent that makes the difference. I'm sure you will all do fine. And if we want to talk impostor syndrome, my BS is in Biology, my BA in history. And I'm doing English. I'm literally an impostor and I told that to the programs, and at least one didn't mind. If they LIKE you, thats all that counts.

Howdy, I'm sneaking over here from the English Literature forums (he said, by way of apology) because I've been accepted to CUA's English Ph. D and I've been looking for anyone else who might be going to school there. In any event, it's my understanding that A) The funding isn't entirely based on GRE, it just plays a role - and not an excessive amount, at that. Funding is initially discussed at the departmental level, depending on how much money individual departments have to offer. For instance, English offers a number of TAships because they have a large need to for handling freshman writing courses. So the nature of your department plays a role there. Finally, C) the university-wide fellowships sometimes delays funding information for a bit. I have a friend who got into CUA's Theology MA to Ph. D, and he's waiting on funding info because his department is going for a university fellowship for him. I hope some of this information is helpful, and not just re-iterating things you already know. Also, biblical studies sounds pretty cool. Do you think you'll accept at CUA? PS. If it helps, my GRE's were 163 reading, 158 math, 5.0 writing. And I'm fully funded. But I can't say if that's just my department's standards, or if it plays no part, etc. But it might help.

I'm curious - does, after acceptance, anyone else have the feeling of, "Good Lord, why did I apply to THAT program? (not the one accepted, but some of the others)?" I look back now and have to laugh at myself - applying to schools I had little interest in going to, but just trying to cast the net wide. It's that sort of desperate, INEEDTOGETINTOGRADSCHOOL feeling that makes us all slightly manic. And now it just looks ridiculous.

Mr Grimwig! It's cool to hear that someone else exists who isn't inclined towards theory, but towards authorial intent and more traditional forms of literary study. I've always felt sort of... awkward... about it. Like the guy who's still showing up to parties dressed in 80's clothes... everyone sort of giggles and ignores you... *shudders*. My own knowledge of Oxford from my undergrad advisor (who did his doctorate there, he's welsh) is that it can be very traditional, but there can be some elements which are extremely progressive and somewhat hostile to one another. He waved me away from the English system for that reason; though I think he probably overstates the case to a degree, it's still worth keeping in mind. Apparently historicism is getting popular over there right now (in Renaissance/Early modern anyway).

Well I imagine this is probably only true towards those of us applicants who only have a BS or BA right now. MA's probably just get outright rejection.

Awesome! You're the only other person I've heard of applying there thus far. What's your area? I hope you get in!

BC automatically funnels non-accepted Ph. D applicants to their MA application process, so if you didn't get one of the Ph. D spots or the waitlist, you haven't heard because they're probably considering you for the MA. I think...

Don't get down yet: you only need one. You'll get there.

Hi! That was me. I haven't seen one solitary mention of CUA on here thus far, for whatever reason - I know it's not a highly 'ranked' program, according to the US News and World Report, but that's an exercise in subjectivity if ever there was one. Nonetheless, I was particularly attracted to Catholic University because it's a sensible successor to my UG alma mater, Providence College. So that's how I first got interested (I don't have a MA). I'm a Renaissance Lit. person myself, particularly Milton. I've been doing more traditional methods of scholarship, versus theory oriented approaches, which was another thing that attracted me to CUA - there are professors there who are solidly interested in old school methods. Also, there's a number of Renaissance professors there (including a Miltonist) who's writings I liked a lot. Hmm, not sure what else to say - I'm just glad that I got accepted somewhere I was really interested in going. And I didn't have to apply to a dozen programs to do it. And that they seemed to like that my UG degrees are in Biology and History, not English. Are you interested in CUA?

Not dorky at all! LOTR is pretty clearly the modern inheritor of the epic tradition, and Tolkien was thinking of those ancient english and welsh myths when he was creating Middle-Earth. It's like Beowulf and Jerusalem Delivered and the Aeneid and Myth wrapped in one lovely package of hobbits and rings. And really, the fact that he wrote a deeply religious novel without going the direct allegory route a la Narnia is pretty darned impressive.

Aside from Heller and Salinger, I've read nothing in later 20th century American literature. Only in reading this thread did I realize Pynchon was some sort of well known author...woops! Also, anyone else feel like they missed 18th century entirely? I've read not a thing from that whole period. But then again, I'm into renaissance/early modern/medieval, so it kind of makes sense that I've missed those. But, I AM a LOTR junkie; I think it's one of the finest pieces of literature of the 20th century. So that's something recent, I suppose!

Absolutely there are, Two Espressos. In fact, there's an entire army of theorists out there who would like to take me out back for a "talking to." At least once in my life I've allowed my temper to overcome my virtue and proceeded to drive an ardent feminist theorist to the brink of beating me senseless with a copy of The Faerie Queene. Which, yes, has a delicious irony to it. Obviously, the bottom line of this argument is going to be a fundamental disagreement of method, which is simply as it goes. I appreciate that we can civily (and fear not, no one has been uncivil!) approach the question and hopefully learn something from one another on the matter. I know I've learned a good bit. I'm a practicing Catholic (actually, your inverse Two Espressos: former atheist, now Catholic), and a traditionalist, and so you can see that my larger philosophical beliefs influence how I approach my field. I make no apology for that; I think it's a entirely legitimate way of approaching these texts. So I disagree with you on authorial intent - I think its still quite important, and quite relevant. It cannot be the end all, be all of literature, because we'll never know what the Bard was actually thinking, but we can certainly try and arrive at certain objective truths about a work's content. For instance, it would be terribly difficult to make John Milton an ardent feminist, but we can certainly discuss whether he was an Arian or not (in the sense Arian heresy, not Hitler...). This has been a FUN conversation thus far, I hope we can keep it going. Also, Lewis' Abolition of Man is pretty much free of discussing religion - it's almost entirely a philosophical treatise on value systems which I've found particularly lucid. I think we'll probably have to agree to disagree in our readings there. I've spent some time with Astrophil and Stella with one of my professors, and we had a fairly different take on good Sir Sidney. And I imagine we could start quoting Donne at one another, too, but arrive at essentially the same problem. So I'll grant you the possibility of your reading, and maintain my own. And yes - the disagreements are what make it interesting!

Yes, but whether God exists isn't the question. Shakespeare thought He did, and thus believed in truth, and thus we must approach his writing with that in mind! We have to understand what HE was saying, not what we try and make him say. But thats just how I approach literature, and I know its not the popular way to do so.

I'll admit, I have not given Sir Philip his fair share of time in my studies; not for lack of interest but simply time. I will, however, hesitate to agree with you about him, based upon what I know of the Arcadia, and what my professors have said about him. And even then, Milton, Shakespeare, Donne, Marlowe, Spenser, Tasso, Dante, Ariosto (to go Italian) would heartily agree with my comments. So it's not as though I'm just making this up, even if there may be exceptions. And I strenuously protest the idea that arguing that there is truth is reductive - entirely the opposite, I believe. But again - I'm a traditionalist, and I don't care much for theory. So therein lies the true dispute, I daresay.