zanmato4794

1. Is it possible to recruit another writer for the added schools? I feel confident that--professors often being understanding people--many would forgive the late notice due to the circumstances. 2. Some people mourn rather quickly. Since most due dates are no earlier than December 1, do you think you could wait until, say, the fifteenth, to ask him to basically switch the name on a few of his LORs? 3. You could totally be semi-shady and fill out an online application that automatically sends requests to writers, and if he asks why one or two extra schools appear, you could play dumb or something: "Did I forget to send you the updated list?" 4. I don't know where you are in your education process (still in the last year of a program, one year graduated?), but if you're adding schools this late, maybe another year to prepare wouldn't hurt? As long as you're working at it, you can only become a better applicant. Sorry for the bad luck. If it makes you feel better, one of my favorite professors--who got into Ohio State in spite of her bad luck--had one of her actual letter writers die during the application season.

I might have this impression because my last department had an unusual concentration of upper-middle-class, sitcom-obsessing, over-dressing-for-everything hyper-extroverts, but I get the feeling that there's a bit of a professionalism wave going on, as if the cutesy-creative approach--at least for non-creative writing applicants--was seen now as more unprofessional. I would be austere: title it "Personal Statement," or structure it as a letter.

Taking time off is great. Not only have I had time and real income to pay down over four thousand dollars in credit card debt, but I've become more emotionally stable, I've healed my social life from the blows it took in graduate school, I've had time to dedicate to my strange hobbies that got neglected, and, more pertinently to the application process: I won two awards at the end of my master's program, did a conference presentation, and, if things go my way, I'm about to have a publication, none of which would have appeared on my CV if I had applied the fall before I graduated. In addition to all this: I had time to ask myself, do I really want to do this?, and the resounding answer, after some time in the "real world," was yes, the real world is a terrible place for anyone with a soul, and--even if I have to get my degree at a low-ranked university and slave away teaching too many classes at a community college for the rest of my life--I know I would rather pursue literature than anything else, no matter how well paid. Because I'm applying, this time around, to rather ambitious schools, I'm actually not even going to be that upset if I get rejected all over, because I know I will apply again (more modestly), and that, with more time, I'll be an even better applicant. A rather serious caveat: I have no intentions of getting married or having children.

Wyatt's Torch, I wonder if I have an idea who your friend is...

I think above 160, most programs will generally give you a nod, and then above, say, 166, they'll give you a plus one, so to speak. (Similarly, shall we say, to how most programs will be like "all right" if you get above a 580-ish on your subject test, and be like "surf's up dude" if you get above 650.) If anyone wants study tips: I got a 170 because my two favorite authors are Nabokov and Coetzee, and when I read them, I make a flashcard of every word I don't know. I did not have to do any studying separate from that process. I am not kidding.

I'm a brazen jerk and think that for eighty dollars, these committees can read the amount of pages they ask for, give or take fifteen percent. Any school that rejected me for sending a twenty-two-page essay when they requested twenty wouldn't, in my opinion, be worth attending. This has been my attitude throughout life and it blows up in my face all the time.

Do they still tell you how many you got right and wrong? I'm curious about the curve.

I have some interesting things to say about today's test. I'm at pains to do so without breaking confidentiality, so please bear with some necessary vagueness. A full five years ago, at the end of my undergraduate career, I took the subject test. Back then, I was very strong on 20th century literature, some theory, and only the absolutely major poems of earlier periods. I had read hardly any Milton, hardly any Shakespeare, hardly any Chaucer, and no Spenser. During the test I was somewhat sick, so I had to take a bathroom break, yet I still had time to read all of the passages and questions, and then go back and make guesses on questions where I could eliminate a few answers. I even had time to do some math during the test to try to guess my score. I left about thirty blank and knew I had guessed on many. When I got a 620, it was on the higher end of what I expected after the test. I don't remember exactly what my raw score was, but I remember noticing that for what it was, my scale score seemed high, and so that version of the test must have been slightly more difficult than the ones ETS has put online over the years (I've found three official ones). In the course of the past five years, I have completed a master's degree and really filled in my canonical knowledge. Even when I was not in school, I was reading, reading, reading. Today, as I started the test, I was really happy at first because I answered thirty questions before I had to leave a blank--and I felt good about those first thirty answers. However, time started going a lot faster than I wanted it to and, without getting too specific, I noticed that most of the questions were of the type that take a while to answer. I flipped forward through the book, thinking that I would find some of the faster type questions, answer a bunch of them, and then, feeling caught up, return to the longer questions with a sense of calm. However: there were very few fast type questions. In the end, I probably left about thirty questions blank, many of which I would have known had I gotten to them. For the past five years, I've had it in my head that knowledge was my problem, not speed, since speed wasn't a problem the first time and since--as anyone who's done some graduate work knows--your abilities are really sharpened at the graduate level. If I was quick enough then, I thought, I would certainly be quick enough now. Honestly, I have no idea how I did. Any score between 590 and, depending on the curve, 720, seems possible to me. This was not the case last time. Last time I would have guessed that I had gotten between about 580 and 630, a much narrower range. The major point I'm making is that this test could very well be changing in a predictable way, and future students should adjust how they study. First of all, the canon is growing, not just linearly through time, but also in breadth as critics demonstrate again and again that, golly, white men aren't the only people with interesting things to say. Secondly, the explosion of theory texts is accreting itself to the body of works students need to be familiar with. I think all of us who have seriously prepared for this test know that they could only test canonical knowledge so much before it started to seem ridiculous, since the body of likely texts would now take a decade to push through. The test is shifting from Jeopardy! sans Trebek to a speed reading contest. It goes without saying that I am very interested in other people's experiences with today's test.

do they not do scores by phone anymore? I don't mean to get those who took it in September all excited, but I remember for AP and the first time I took the GRE lit (ugh, 2009), scores by phone were ready a few days earlier than they said they'd be.

I'm actually kind of excited for it. I remember having fun the first time I took it. Afterwards I'm spoiling myself: getting a burrito, buying a bottle of wine, playing video games all night.

I have kind of a strange question. Does anyone here know of someone who did less than stellar as an undergraduate, made a comeback as an Master's student, and then got accepted into like a top ten school? I'm sure such people exist, but hearing stories would be heartening right about now. I made a bunch of stupid decisions as an undergrad, and also had a lot going on (onset of bipolar disorder, working too much, huge commute, etc), but still got accepted into a decent-ish MA lit program. I took the GRE recently: 170V, 161Q, 5.0 W; and I have a 4.0 so far in the program. When I took the Lit test as an undergrad I got 620, but that was three years ago, so I'm confident I'll get high 600s or maybe even break 700 this time. I'm confident in my SOP and writing sample. I'm applying to Harvard and U of Penn, then three other schools (all top 30), but I'm afraid they'll all look at my undergrad transcripts and just think "he's too much of a liability." Why accept a recovered student over one who has remained consistent throughout his entire career? It's not even like my undergrad transcripts were that bad: 3.45 overall, 3.6 English, but several withdrawals. It feels like since I've started my MA and got on medication, I've finally had the opportunity to work the way I would've liked to all along. It also feels too late though. Also: making an impression as a Master's student is difficult. I feel like I hardly know the faculty members writing letters of rec for me, yet they all say asking undergrad professors would be a bad idea. So: if anyone has a story of someone beating the odds, I'd love to hear it. I don't want to think of my application fees as donations.