Dark Matter

Minnesota/Penn State and then roughly Missouri Kentucky Syracuse University of Florida FSU In other words, I'd say there's a significant gap between the top two--Minnesota and Penn State--and the rest.

I haven't posted in a while, but those who have read my posts before know the kind of advice I've given and from where. In any case, let me say that the NRC rankings are perceived within the business as crazy to worthless. The US News rankings are perceived as annoyingly stodgy but as bearing some closer relation to the truth. There is not a single possible world in which UConn is a better department than Brown or Arizona State than Chicago. Trust me. If you get into both, you would be making a mistake to take the first over the second, in every respect including especially job placement. The faculty at UConn and AZ State would almost certainly agree.

Just to join the chorus here, top twenty programs typically admit twice as many as they expect to enroll.

Interesting you that you would find it "obvious," since #1 is not widely known and since #2 provides an answer different from other posts on this board. But anyway, what "insider" info would you like?

1) The number of students varies depending on the size of the department; most top twenties admit between 10 and 30 and expect to enroll a class of roughly half that size. 2) Yes, departments usually aim for breadth across fields and so try not to admit too many in one area, few in another. But the notion sometimes found on this board that individual members of a department/search committee are allowed a certain number of slots is mistaken. 3) Most departments are in the process of reading files, making decisions right now.

I'm not disputing that Chicago's MAPH program might have a net positive effect for some. But it is without question designed as a cash cow for the university. It is very similar to the NYU Draper program in that respect. It is expected that one pays (often quite a lot of) tuition for a BA. That is an entry-ticket into the adult world. It is also expected that one pays (often quite a lot of) tuition for professional training, such as law or medical school. Those degrees are credentials for jobs that pay well enough to cover undergraduate or professional school loans. However, post graduate degrees in the humanities traditionally offer stipend and teaching support. And for good reason: they take 6+ years and starting salaries are typically not of the order to cover large loans, and these days are sadly not at all guaranteed. When Chicago and NYU introduced new MA programs in the humanities and social sciences (along the lines of already existing programs at Columbia and UVA) they did so to leverage the cost of (among other things) running their PhD programs. I think in the current academic job market these programs are arguably unethical. But that is emphatically not to say that they don't work well for some. My point again is simply this CAVEAT EMPTOR. The one guarantee MAPH or NYU or Columbia offers is a bunch of debt. Some go on to elite programs, many others do not. Paying for a graduate degree in the humanities is a huge risk.

Wreck is right. CGU is not technically "for profit" in the sense that, say, the university of phoenix is. I meant it in a looser, metaphorical sense. They want you there to pay tuition. The same is the case for all those MA programs that places like NYU run, technically not "for profit" but designed for generating tuition revenue more than training students. And the same for the Chicago MAPH program. CAVEAT EMPTOR. Paying tuition for graduate school in the humanities is not something to do lightly and is rarely a good idea.

They don't have any funding for anyone. It's a tuition-driven, for profit "graduate university." No one should ever pay tuition to do a PhD in English, and barring exceptional circumstances, no one should ever go without a stipend and guaranteed TAships either.

Anyone on an admissions committee bored or creepy enough to google applicants would be too ashamed actually to bring this up in a discussion with his or her colleagues, so you're in the clear. Trust me.

If you're looking to work in your current institution and you have support from them for the MA, then it might make sense to take that approach. I wouldn't recommend leaving for a PhD. I can answer this at greater length through inbox if you'd like.

Proflorox presents the closest the correct answer here.The truth is, it's impossible to say. After the initial cut is made, decisions turn on a variety of imponderable factors, and really have as much to do with a committee (or one or two readers') overall sense of a candidate as on any particular achievement. Statement and writing sample rule the day. An MA student with a thesis can sometimes seem overripe, whereas that BA could seem full of potential (don't worry there also reasons it could cut the other way). The point is there is no way simply to draw up a ledger and know in advance who is going to see what in a given file.

For what it's worth, neither MIT nor Stanford are Ivies.

On balance it's a good idea because it shows familiarity with the program. But really guys, relax. If you mention someone who has left the department, isn't teaching graduate seminars, doesn't get along with someone on the admissions committee etc. it will be forgiven. We don't expect you to be psychic. At most we would like some evidence that you have thought about where you're applying. And again, really what we look for lies elsewhere in the statement: in the way that you describe why you want to go to graduate school and what you want to study.

A "personal statement" is just a "statement of purpose" with another name. Go about it the same way: why do you want to go to graduate school, what do you want to study, how do you see yourself defining a relation to the existing state of play in the discipline, in your future field, etc. Don't talk about falling in love with novels at summer camp or learning to sky dive in europe during your junior year abroad.

Krikey. No one expects or even wants you guys to have publications already. And, sure send in a CV, or don't. It won't matter. Of the thousands of applications I've read over the years, I've never once bothered to look at the CV. It's the SOP, the writing sample, scores/grades, and recs, in roughly that order, give or take with some nuance for individual cases. But CVs, whatever ... really. And publications!? Whatever X2

No cover letter and don't format the SOP like a letter.

We ask about where you applied to get a sense, if we decide to admit you, who we might be competing with. It's a pretty minor thing and never works against you.

The writing sample should match the SoP with respect to field. That is, if you say you are planning to work in Victorian you should send a writing sample on a nineteenth-century text, and so on down the line. The sample need not--in fact, in many cases should not--match some proposed topic of future research, since your future research will almost certainly evolve and change dramatically through course work. The goal should always be to send the writing that demonstrates what kind of critic you might turn out to be. Committees who read your writing sample do not imagine your future work on whatever topic you've chosen for the paper you've sent. They try to future-project your work with them based on the existing evidence you provide, the way you currently questions, read texts, relate to scholarship and theory, etc.

What Phil said.

It doesn't matter, even a little. Don't sweat it, and by all means do not contact a department to correct this minor, meaningless mistake that no one will notice or care about.

Indeed, it does depend on location. The New York City community colleges by official rule only hire PhDs, because their administrations like to count the number of PhDs on their staff and supply is so high in the city that they can.

varies widely, maybe on average about three years for those who finally do get full time positions, but many never do. This is one of the many reasons why unfunded MA programs are so risky for the students and so unethical for the departments and universities running them.

Really guys, don't sweat a page or two in either direction.

Yes, it doesn't make a difference.

Then discuss in this order: - your research topic and methodology - why you are interested in this and why it matters Actually, I think the first two bullet points of this otherwise quite helpful post are wrong. Having read many of statements of purpose over the years, and having sat on an admissions committee of a department that many of you will be applying to, let me say that overly specific descriptions of dissertation topics are a minus. What we want is a convincing account of your research interests, the kinds of questions that motivate you, described withiin a broader account of why you want to do PhD in English (again, written in such a way that conveys that you understand what it means to do one, in 2012.)