Dark Matter

I didn't say that it is always a significant mistake, just that it is often is. I also added that "for profit" MA programs--even or especially those at places like the University of Chicago or NYU--are on very thin ice ethically, as they generate money for the rest of the department by getting some students to take on debt. My point for anyone reading this board is that choosing to pay money, especially if it is through taking out a loan, to get an MA is something to think twice about before doing. I'm glad you feel good about your choice waparys, but you're generalizing from your one experience and are still in the midst of it all. I've seen hundreds of students go through the process, for better and often worse. An MA can help to get into a PhD program, but just as often it makes no difference. A PhD in the humanities is not like a professional degree with guaranteed employment (like, say, an MBA or MD). The chance that the MA will mean debt with no means of remuneration are very high. The best way of figuring out if a PhD is right for you is to begin one. No one holds a gun to your head and makes you stay. But there is no reason why one year at an MA program will give you a better sense of what it is like to do a PhD than one year in a PhD program. There's no reason and it is significantly more expensive.

Let me just say, as someone in the business, that paying money for an MA in English is not something to do lightly, no matter where it is from, and is very often a significant mistake. I would also add that any for profit MA program--that is, any MA program that charges tuition and therefore creates revenue for the rest of the department/university-- in a discipline with chronic oversupply/under-demand problems is really very dubious ethically. All of you should know this.

I posted a long note about my decade long experience on the admissions committee of a top 20 English department. You can go to the Fall 2013 thread and read it if you like. The SUNY Buffalo note rings true to me, apart from the presence of graduate students on the committee, which is highly unusual and (by my lights) not a very good idea.

Fit simply means how well your interests and intellectual profile match up with the department to which you're applying, or more precisely with the scholars working in the field(s) you want to study in. So, let's say you describe yourself in your SoP as wanting to work in Victorian, with a particular interest in fiction and the digital humanities, you might not be a great "fit" for a department where the Victorianists work primarily on gender or poetry or philosophical questions, etc. Ditto if you're a Modernist who wants to work on literature and film applying to a department where the relevant people concentrate on colonialism and race, and so on down the line. Like everything else, there is no hard and fast rule here. We all know that interests change and that applicants have more than one side. The same holds for faculty, whose expertise and teaching/supervisory interests can range well beyond their publications. Often we look precisely for curiosity and breadth in applicants. Nevertheless, you have to describe yourself as having intellectual interests. "Fit" simply means how well those interests will be served, and it is an important factor in decisions especially near the end.

Hello all, I'm a professor in a "top twenty" English department. I've served on the graduate admissions committee off and on for more than a decade. Let me quickly answer some of your questions: GRE scores matter a great deal for initial cut offs. We get something like 300+ applications every year. A third of those or so are tossed immediately, based on a combination of low GREs, low grades, and a quick read of the materials. GRE scores continue to matter further on down the line, but become less important. I have seen low GRE scores kill a candidacy even at the late stages (when the writing wasn't enough to compensate). However, I have never seen high GRE scores by themselves admit anyone. WS and SoP matter most of all. SoP should be a concise, clear, and jargon free explanation of why want to go to graduate school in English. Above all else, it should be intellectual. You should make it clear that you aware of and interested in the state of play in contemporary scholarship. Common errors are the "I love literature" essay. We all know you do, but that is beside the point. Or the "I want to write a dissertation on topic x" statement. We all know that you won't write that dissertation. Try for a simple, intelligent, and above all well-written explanation of what kinds of topics and questions in literary study you find compelling and want to pursue. And yes do explain what about graduate program x (what faculty, for example) interests you. WS should simply be the best piece of writing you have. That is not very helpful I'm sure! But there really is no other way of putting it. Your professors will be able to tell you what among your work reads the best. Take the time to improve, polish, and get to the right length your best paper or thesis chapter or what have you. Everything else being equal, it's better if the sample is from the period you declare as your field of interest. That is, everything else being equal, if you're applying to work in the nineteenth century, you shouldn't send an essay on Chaucer. Letters of recommendation matter less than you might think, given rampant puffery, but they still matter some. Your professors should be able to make a good case for you. So make it clear to them that you know why you're applying to graduate school. Finally yes, it's true that admissions are competitive. There is no magic bullet to get you in. Admissions committees look for curiosity and intelligence and a clear potential to produce good work in literary studies. All we have to go on is what you send us, so make sure that material is in tip-top shape. Happy to answer any additional questions you folks might have and best of luck.