Top Tier Schools

[artist_lily]

Unfortunately, there seems to be no such thing as a "safety" school in grad school, especially for lit.

Ultimately, your SOP and writing sample and FIT will get you in. Get in touch with faculty members to find out about what they're working on; websites can only give you so much information and are often outdated. Find the places that best fit you. Those will be the most practical and cost-effective applications.

Yes, "safety" is probably the wrong word here, but I do feel some are MUCH, MUCH more likely than others -- in particular, I'm thinking of state schools that are not known for their English departments and offer Master's programs (even better, funded Master's programs!).

[woolfie]

I think strokeofmidnight makes some great points -- applications are, certainly, unpredictable beasts -- but I'm very much in the same boat as woolfie here, and I think my application round would have been served much better had I recognized the HUGE improbability of my getting into a top-10 program when I was putting together my list of schools. Yes, my adviser had told me such schools were long shots; yes, I believed her; but I didn't account for the absolute swell in applications this year... or the pain of being rejected from every program I applied to that was ranked higher than 25.

While I realize that one can never predict the results (the nebulousness of this process is nothing if not overwhelming), I do feel that spending hundreds of dollars to apply to "top-tier" schools is, for those with "very good but not excellent" stats like mine, nearly always "a rookie mistake." I would not do it this way again. Sure, I could've gotten lucky; sure, I could've been one of the chosen few; but the odds were slim, and the time and energy I put into my "reach" applications could have been much better spent working on the SoPs for several lower-ranked but still high quality programs.

As I heard from the beginning (but wish I had followed more closely), a couple reach schools, several middle-ground schools, and a couple "safety" schools seems to be the right formula.

Thanks for the insight- may I ask how many top 25 schools you applied to? What's your outcome for this year?

I definitely agree with all that has been said previously and I'm really dedicating myself to researching faculty for fit. I can just see the pain of so many people who applied to the top 20 schools and are getting rejected across the board. I think it's a good strategy to only apply to a couple that are a perfect fit, instead of more schools with less fit, like strokeofmidnight was saying.

Now I find myself debating 'is it really necesssary to apply to low tier schools? Like the ones that I don't really want to go to, but would get an MA at if I had no other options (Kent State or Bowling Green State offer funded, terminal MAs). They are definitely not good fits for me, but if it takes getting an MA at some non-ranked place over getting rejected from everywhere... I just might consider it

[woolfie]

Re: fit in programs

I certainly am gearing my research towards that and will ultimately be widdling down my long list for those reasons. But I guess I'm also trying to keep a practical sense towards the process and mainly, my question is about a top tier school, for example Cornell, that DOES have a great fit for me, but it's... Cornell. Same thing with Michigan. I also think that the top schools are going to be better fits for almost everyone because they are top schools for a reason: they have a large faculty with lots of diversity.

Also, yes there are no 'safety schools' but there are definitely schools that are easy to get into if you are qualified, for instance I mentioned Kent State, which has an 80% acceptance rate. I also read somewhere that U of Louisville has a 94% acceptance rate. That seems impossible to me, but who knows. Perhaps those stats are referring to MA programs.

[intextrovert]

I certainly am gearing my research towards that and will ultimately be widdling down my long list for those reasons. But I guess I'm also trying to keep a practical sense towards the process and mainly, my question is about a top tier school, for example Cornell, that DOES have a great fit for me, but it's... Cornell. Same thing with Michigan. I also think that the top schools are going to be better fits for almost everyone because they are top schools for a reason: they have a large faculty with lots of diversity.

I think the thing to think about is that you don't want to leave your application season with any regrets. No one is saying you should spend hundreds of dollars on top-20 applications. But if you've identified Cornell and Michigan as great fits, why not just go for those two? The rest of your applications can be at those programs you consider more "realistic," but if you at least toss your hat in the ring, you won't have to think, "What if...?" I, personally, regret not applying to Harvard this year. Obviously, the chance that I would have gotten in is miniscule, but it's a good fit for my interests and I just got caught in that, "It's HARVARD - what's the point?" thinking. But that just doesn't apply in this crazy process. I applied to only top-20 programs in my first round two years ago, and was feeling chastised after universal rejections. I've gotten into programs I was rejected from last time this round. However, though I got into one program I considered pretty "safe," I'm pretty sure I'm rejected from another that is ranked about the same as it. I'm in at one top-20 and waitlisted at another. You just can't rely on US News like that. My acceptances and rejections don't seem to have a huge amount of correlation with those rankings - though they do with my own "fit" ranking!

And it's not true that all top-20 programs are good fits for everybody (or even most people). There are only a few that really have people I could work with and whose general approach fits my own. So if you find one that's a good fit, go for it!

[Branwen daughter of Llyr]

I agree with intextrovert.

actually - quite a few top-twenty programs aren't a good fit for me. Stanford, UPenn, Duke, Johns Hopkins - all in the top 20 - none are a good fit for me.

On the other hand, Harvard is a perfect fit (due to their "secondary" subject in Celtic languages and literature), Yale is a good fit(strong medievalists), UCLA is an excellent fit academically (welsh and celtic studies, again), U Michigan, and a few more. I'm personally planning on sending about 10-12 applications. about half will be top-twenty. The other half will be other excellent programs with good fit. (CU Boulder, Ohio State, Illinois U-C, Washington University in St. Louis, and maybe UMass Amherst) I trust that I'll get in to where I'm supposed to go to - top-tier or not.

I think you should try - at least to those you'd LOVE TO GO TO. You know, those schools whose programs provide endless wet dreams at night . You have the stats, trust that. It's just a matter of SOP and writing sample!

[hinesaj]

I wanted to quickly throw my hat into this discussion. This year was my first, and thankfully, only time taking part in this process of pure randomness. I applied to 10 schools, and, somewhat unintentionally, all of them were top-tier programs. I was rejected from 8, accepted to one with an additional 'honors' fellowship, and still haven't heard from UVA (seems like most others have heard from them? what's the deal...but i guess that's neither here nor there). Towards application deadline time when I realized that I was truly shooting for the top, I started to panic.

I thought I should add some schools that I thought I would have a better chance of getting in, but as I tried to do some last minute research, I recognized that doing so would be silly for two reasons. One, as several have already stated, there are no 'safeties' in graduate admissions. As Woolfie mentioned Ohio State and Penn State both received a huge number of applications--while those are still exceptional programs, I would venture to say that pretty much any school in the "top 75" would yield similar numbers of applicants. Perhaps because of this, I remembered a sort of promise that I had made to myself, I should not apply anywhere that I would not be floored to attend. I didn't want to choose a school that I wouldn't have been pleased for the simple fact that they were the only one that admitted me--a very definite possibility in this climate. The thing about top tier schools, or this whole process, is that all you really need is one acceptance. Just one. Why waste the time to apply to others just to accrue acceptances that you wouldn't be satisfied with? I am incredibly fortunate that I got my "one," as I know many others don't.

This process is random. Many say it. Few truly believe it. Why does it seem that I'm a top applicant at one program, when I didn't even make the waitlist at 9 similar places? Its incredibly difficult to say, other than I don't know. I want to share an anecdote with everyone, that I've probably shared before, that may give you a window into the process.

I went to Penn for undergrad (graduated last year) and one of my mentors there was on the Admissions Committee.

Before I continue, a quick non-sequitur. I know a lot of people on this board are very angry at Penn because of the incredibly small incoming class size for this year. I doubt that they intentionally hid this information from applicants, and if they did so meant to do it maliciously. Funding is a complicated game, and the department may have hoped to receive a greater allocation of funds than they actually did. And in fact, the insider line was that they only had enough money for 5 slots, and they only expected to admit 5--instead, they admitted 6 and have a short waitlist. Obviously not the size of the usual cohort, but still pushing their funds as far as they can to bring as many students as they possibly can to the program. Not only does Penn's department have some of the best scholars in the country, it also has some of the nicest faculty around who truly care about the well-being of their students, and those who hope to be their students--at least, in my experience. Please try to cut them a small amount of slack. (Full disclosure: I applied and was rejected this year.)

Anyhow, my mentor had told me that the process started by shaving the applicant pool down to about 100-200 candidates. They did look at every application, but I imagine there was some sort of statistical criteria that helped them do this. From that point the pool was narrowed again, after the AdCom read the entirety of all of these applications. At this point, the number is more around 50-75 applicants. According to my mentor, those 50-75 applicants are all incredibly capable of succeeding in the program, which, more or less, is a careful way of saying that they all would be admitted if the conditions were right--i.e., a world of no money, no limits on enrollment etc...

But, we do not live in that world. So how do they choose from those students? One student had written in his/her statement about a rather obscure play that she was interested in that a faculty member had just been doing work on. He/she was in. What if that student had applied a year earlier before that faculty member was doing work on that particular play? He/She may have not been accepted.

Even at the best programs in the country, admissions decisions are arbitrary (to a point...) at best. This incredibly long post has all been to say that you should most certainly apply to a top school if it fits for you. You may not get in, but you shouldn't sell yourself short just because the odds are stacked so heavily against you. Be mindful of the acceptance rates when applying, but find the programs that you would die to go to, and apply to those, regardless of the ranking.

[woolfie]

On 3/10/2010 at 12:58 PM, hinesaj said:

I went to Penn for undergrad (graduated last year) and one of my mentors there was on the Admissions Committee.

Anyhow, my mentor had told me that the process started by shaving the applicant pool down to about 100-200 candidates. They did look at every application, but I imagine there was some sort of statistical criteria that helped them do this. From that point the pool was narrowed again, after the AdCom read the entirety of all of these applications. At this point, the number is more around 50-75 applicants. According to my mentor, those 50-75 applicants are all incredibly capable of succeeding in the program, which, more or less, is a careful way of saying that they all would be admitted if the conditions were right--i.e., a world of no money, no limits on enrollment etc...

But, we do not live in that world. So how do they choose from those students? One student had written in his/her statement about a rather obscure play that she was interested in that a faculty member had just been doing work on. He/she was in. What if that student had applied a year earlier before that faculty member was doing work on that particular play? He/She may have not been accepted.

Even at the best programs in the country, admissions decisions are arbitrary (to a point...) at best. This incredibly long post has all been to say that you should most certainly apply to a top school if it fits for you. You may not get in, but you shouldn't sell yourself short just because the odds are stacked so heavily against you. Be mindful of the acceptance rates when applying, but find the programs that you would die to go to, and apply to those, regardless of the ranking.

Hey, thanks for that story. It's helpful to keep in mind, especially after recieving some rejections, that a lot of perfectly qualified candidates are getting rejected. It really is arbitrary up to a point.

[Pamphilia]

I remembered a sort of promise that I had made to myself, I should not apply anywhere that I would not be floored to attend. I didn't want to choose a school that I wouldn't have been pleased for the simple fact that they were the only one that admitted me--a very definite possibility in this climate.

Yes, thank you for your wonderful post, Hinesaj, and to Intextrovert. I think it's really important that one apply to places where one could be happy and do good work, not just where one might get a foot in the door. I realize this is an oversimplification of many situations, and that when many people refer to "safeties" they ARE talking about places they could be happy, just not so-called "top" schools. But still, I think in the fever of application anxiety it can be easy to forget that there is more to grad school beyond getting in.

Another point that I haven't seen mentioned here (and I hope doesn't piss anyone off) is the issue of the career post-grad school. I think applicants ought to keep job placement rates in mind when deciding where to apply. I mean, if you're applying anywhere that will take you, what is the point if the program can't help you get a job afterward to continue you academic scholarship? I'm not trying to suggest that "lower-ranked" programs are worthless--not by any means--but this unfortunately is a really important point to keep in mind. How do the so-called "safeties" (whatever that means to each of you) rack up in terms of tenure-track job placement? (FYI: I say this to refer specifically to people who DO desire and intend to pursue a career in academia; I realize that there may be a few who just want to experience going to grad school and are cool with finding an unrelated job afterward.) I know this might be a touchy subject and I really hope that no one thinks I am being snobby or elitist here. I personally don't believe in such a thing as "safeties" in this situation and therefore I'm not referring to any specific programs or "tier" of programs. But this is something to bear in mind.

Edited March 10, 2010 by Pamphilia

[Branwen daughter of Llyr]

Yes, thank you for your wonderful post, Hinesaj, and to Intextrovert. I think it's really important that one apply to places where one could be happy and do good work, not just where one might get a foot in the door. I realize this is an oversimplification of many situations, and that when many people refer to "safeties" they ARE talking about places they could be happy, just not so-called "top" schools. But still, I think in the fever of application anxiety it can be easy to forget that there is more to grad school beyond getting in.

Another point that I haven't seen mentioned here (and I hope doesn't piss anyone off) is the issue of the career post-grad school. I think applicants ought to keep job placement rates in mind when deciding where to apply. I mean, if you're applying anywhere that will take you, what is the point if the program can't help you get a job afterward to continue you academic scholarship? I'm not trying to suggest that "lower-ranked" programs are worthless--not by any means--but this unfortunately is a really important point to keep in mind. How do the so-called "safeties" (whatever that means to each of you) rack up in terms of tenure-track job placement? (FYI: I say this to refer specifically to people who DO desire and intend to pursue a career in academia; I realize that there may be a few who just want to experience going to grad school and are cool with finding an unrelated job afterward.) I know this might be a touchy subject and I really hope that no one thinks I am being snobby or elitist here. I personally don't believe in such a thing as "safeties" in this situation and therefore I'm not referring to any specific programs or "tier" of programs. But this is something to bear in mind.

You don't sound snobby or elitist at all. Placement is a MAJOR factor in my choices. I'm already 38, and getting a tenure track position when I get my PhD (or at least a highly lucrative post-grad position) is imperative to my decision. Although I'm not incredibly picky about the location of the school I end up teaching in (at least at this point), and it doesn't necessarily have to be an ivy or similar, or even R1 - I do want to teach at a good school, with a thriving English department, that places a great deal of emphasis on scholarship. So for me, at least, placement record is paramount (right after fit).

[Pamphilia]

You don't sound snobby or elitist at all. Placement is a MAJOR factor in my choices. I'm already 38, and getting a tenure track position when I get my PhD (or at least a highly lucrative post-grad position) is imperative to my decision. Although I'm not incredibly picky about the location of the school I end up teaching in (at least at this point), and it doesn't necessarily have to be an ivy or similar, or even R1 - I do want to teach at a good school, with a thriving English department, that places a great deal of emphasis on scholarship. So for me, at least, placement record is paramount (right after fit).

Thanks. I was really agonizing over the phrasing. What I meant to say is that a person shouldn't shoot for the very bottom just to nab an acceptance, because the degree won't help much one s/he comes out the other side. Of course a body doesn't have to go to, say, Harvard just to find a job. I know that the "higher-ranked" schools don't always have better job placement; I just nixed a very desirable "top ten" school in part because its placement rate was much lower than the rates of my other options. However, schools with more established reputations do often have an easier time placing their grads. I just mean to say that person shouldn't just try to apply with the object of getting in, but that s/he should consider what happens after acceptance, as well.

Oh dear. I think I'm just putting my foot deeper in it. Sorry!

Edited March 10, 2010 by Pamphilia

[crutch]

Thanks. I was really agonizing over the phrasing. What I meant to say is that a person shouldn't shoot for the very bottom just to nab an acceptance, because the degree won't help much one s/he comes out the other side. Of course a body doesn't have to go to, say, Harvard just to find a job. I know that the "higher-ranked" schools don't always have better job placement; I just nixed a very desirable "top ten" school in part because it's placement rate was much lower than the rates of my other options. However, schools with more established reputations do often have an easier time placing their grads. I just mean to say that person shouldn't just try to apply with the object of getting in, but that s/he should consider what happens after acceptance, as well.

I'm just putting my foot deeper in it, I think. Sorry!

As someone who has just been rejected across the board (I assume, but this is with the Illinois result pending), I have to say - I fully agree with you.

Next year I will be casting a much wider net. I will probably aim for 20 or so schools that fit my research interests well. About 5-10 of those schools will be top tier, about 5-10 will be mid tier, and about 5 will be lower tier, if you will. However, I will NOT apply to a school that doesn't give me a decent chance of finding a intellectually satisfying job afterward. It just doesn't make sense.

I have several family members who keep probing me, trying to figure out why I won't just do a PhD at my undergrad institution starting this fall. I've tried to explain that their placement record is extremely poor and that I don't believe I will find the program rewarding, but, alas, many fail to understand the level of competition that exists within the humanities at present.

Edited March 10, 2010 by crutch

[strokeofmidnight]

While I realize that one can never predict the results (the nebulousness of this process is nothing if not overwhelming), I do feel that spending hundreds of dollars to apply to "top-tier" schools is, for those with "very good but not excellent" stats like mine, nearly always "a rookie mistake." I would not do it this way again. Sure, I could've gotten lucky; sure, I could've been one of the chosen few; but the odds were slim, and the time and energy I put into my "reach" applications could have been much better spent working on the SoPs for several lower-ranked but still high quality programs.

As I heard from the beginning (but wish I had followed more closely), a couple reach schools, several middle-ground schools, and a couple "safety" schools seems to be the right formula.

The difficulty is that the stats aren't very revealing of one's chances. It's certainly true that the most very successful applicants tend to have higher stats, but I think it would be a mistake to argue for causation here. I know of students with perfect GRE's, GPA's, and name-brand dipolmmas who got in nowhere, and students with relatively lower or middling numbers who did very well at the tip-top program. It is wise to apply widely (as long as you're pretty sure that you'd want to attend--and obtain your PhD from--every program that you apply) to a range of programs that fit your work, but I don't think that the stats are reliable indications of...anything, really.

Also, I wouldn't apply to a "safety" school unless I'd be happy going there (and more importantly, as Pamphilia noted, getting my PhD from there).

Now I find myself debating 'is it really necesssary to apply to low tier schools? Like the ones that I don't really want to go to, but would get an MA at if I had no other options (Kent State or Bowling Green State offer funded, terminal MAs). They are definitely not good fits for me, but if it takes getting an MA at some non-ranked place over getting rejected from everywhere... I just might consider it

It depends what you want to do with your degree. If you *just* want the chance to study literature for 5-7 years, with the understanding that your education may or may not prepare you to be competitive on the job market, than perhaps the "low tier" schools are worth it. Certainly, there are some very good scholars (working in awesome places!) who came out of these less competitive (and possibly less rigorous) programs...but I sense that they are the exceptions rather than the rule. If you have your heart set on an R1 or elite SLAC job, then perhaps you'd want to aim for the programs with much stronger placement (which tends to be the higher-ranking ones, though this isn't a direct correlation). Obviously, there are no guarantees either way--a *good* tenure-track placement is 60-70%...which is still a gamble (though you have 5-7 years to try to load the dice).

Personally, I would never recommend accepting an offer from a place that isn't a good fit for you. It's simply hard to do good work without the faculty, archival, student, etc resources...and I think I can safely say that regardless of where you're graduating out of, it's impossible to find a job if you're not doing good work. And frankly...it would be hard for me (personally) to be happy at a place that isn't a good fit for me.

Re: fit in programs

I certainly am gearing my research towards that and will ultimately be widdling down my long list for those reasons. But I guess I'm also trying to keep a practical sense towards the process and mainly, my question is about a top tier school, for example Cornell, that DOES have a great fit for me, but it's... Cornell. Same thing with Michigan. I also think that the top schools are going to be better fits for almost everyone because they are top schools for a reason: they have a large faculty with lots of diversity.

Also, yes there are no 'safety schools' but there are definitely schools that are easy to get into if you are qualified, for instance I mentioned Kent State, which has an 80% acceptance rate. I also read somewhere that U of Louisville has a 94% acceptance rate. That seems impossible to me, but who knows. Perhaps those stats are referring to MA programs.

Honestly, top tier schools are definitely *not* good fits for everyone. If one thinks so, I think one might want to re-examine one's project carefully...as well as the scholarship that is coming out of those programs. Ever program has its own subset of methodologies, its strength and weakness. I have a relatively wide-ranging, heavily interdisciplinary project...and for complicated reasons, applied only to very strong programs. There are 3 programs that are virtually perfect fits, 5 or 6 more that are "good" fits...and one or two that seem promising but nebulous. There's absolutely no way that the entire top 10, top 20, top 50...or whatever arbitrary line one wants to draw to denote the "top programs"....would have been suitable for my research.

[Shaky Premise]

; I just nixed a very desirable "top ten" school in part because its placement rate was much lower than the rates of my other options.

This is probably a topic for another thread (if it doesn't have one already), but are there resources you're using to find out about these placement rates? I realize some schools post this information and others don't; others offer up a vague list of schools where they've placed people but don't give any specific information about when or who. Where might I look for more information?

[Pamphilia]

This is probably a topic for another thread (if it doesn't have one already), but are there resources you're using to find out about these placement rates? I realize some schools post this information and others don't; others offer up a vague list of schools where they've placed people but don't give any specific information about when or who. Where might I look for more information?

Sometimes you can get this information on the program websites, though not always, and the information isn't always that useful or even on the up-and-up (programs will give placement numbers that include not only tenure-track but any academic job, i.e., one-year post-docs, community college adjuncts, and high/prep school gigs.; they will include in their numbers not only people who find placements quickly but also those who only manage to find jobs years after graduation; and so forth). I personally found out this info from the fancy pants program during a visit, when I asked pointed questions and was finally given a straight answer after something of a runaround. I have decided to make a point of asking "In the last three years, what has been your tenure-track placement record for doctorates in their first year out of the program? How about two years out of the program? Can you name the schools where recent grads have secured appointments during the last three years?" It's important, as I understand it, to ask about recent years' placement rates, as well as to ask where the grads are going.

I don't know of any specific databases where you could find this information; the only ones that I can think of have extremely out-dated and useless statistics. Again, you may be able to get this information on a department website, but it might not always be very straightforward. The best thing to do, I think, would be to email either the DGS or the grad coordinator/secretary and ask (phrase it very specifically so they can't give you any kind of runaround or skewed statistics). Oh, and I forgot to add that you should ask how students place within your specific area of interest in addition to general placement numbers.

Edited March 11, 2010 by Pamphilia

[intextrovert]

Another point that I haven't seen mentioned here (and I hope doesn't piss anyone off) is the issue of the career post-grad school. I think applicants ought to keep job placement rates in mind when deciding where to apply. I mean, if you're applying anywhere that will take you, what is the point if the program can't help you get a job afterward to continue you academic scholarship? I'm not trying to suggest that "lower-ranked" programs are worthless--not by any means--but this unfortunately is a really important point to keep in mind. How do the so-called "safeties" (whatever that means to each of you) rack up in terms of tenure-track job placement? (FYI: I say this to refer specifically to people who DO desire and intend to pursue a career in academia; I realize that there may be a few who just want to experience going to grad school and are cool with finding an unrelated job afterward.) I know this might be a touchy subject and I really hope that no one thinks I am being snobby or elitist here. I personally don't believe in such a thing as "safeties" in this situation and therefore I'm not referring to any specific programs or "tier" of programs. But this is something to bear in mind.

Yes - this is the thing to really keep in mind: the only reason "rank" matters is for job placement. These programs are ranked purely based on surveys filled out by people in the field - the same people that do the hiring. It would be crazy, for example, to take an offer from a school ranked in the top 15 or so over one in the top 30 if the one in the top 30 has better placement rates. Treating the rankings list like it is precise and indicative of something other than a randomly-selected group of academics' nebulous concept of prestige doesn't make sense - what matters (aside from, obviously, the while-you're-there factors) is whether it will get you where you want to go.

After my first unsuccessful round and subsequently deciding to widen my net a bit, I spent a long time thinking about what I would do if I was accepted at only a school with not-so-hot job placement. I decided this was not really what I wanted, but that if I went through round #2 will all rejections from top programs, I still wanted to pursue a Ph.D. somewhere, as long as it was a good fit for me. I'd continue to aim for the tenure track dream, but keep in mind that I might not end reaching it. I had alternative options in mind (Plan Bs) that I could live with where a Ph.D. in English wouldn't have been a waste of time (though I do think it has intrinsic worth as well). That's not to say that it's impossible to get a great academic position coming from a less prestigious program. It is possible, and I would have worked hard to achieve that. But if you're being realistic, it's a lot less likely, and it's only wise to consider the idea that you might be signing up for a different type of future if you accept a position at a program whose TT placement rate is 20% versus one whose rate is 65%. If you can live with that, great, and forget about the people who say non-top-tier humanities Ph.D.s aren't worth it. It becomes more tied to your specific situation and expectations/goals the lower-ranked (meaning lower placement rates) you go.

Now, luckily it didn't happen for me, and I don't think I yet have to face the question of Plan Bs (though man, I really need to carefully research placement rates at the schools where I'm accepted!). But who knows, with the job market the way it is, I think it's always good to be aware of other paths, even when you are determined - as I certainly am - to get an eventual academic dream job. But always know what you're getting into.

Edited March 11, 2010 by intextrovert

[diehtc0ke]

This is probably a topic for another thread (if it doesn't have one already), but are there resources you're using to find out about these placement rates? I realize some schools post this information and others don't; others offer up a vague list of schools where they've placed people but don't give any specific information about when or who. Where might I look for more information?

If they're not shouting about their job placement rate from the mountain tops, chances are it's not that great.

[strokeofmidnight]

This is probably a topic for another thread (if it doesn't have one already), but are there resources you're using to find out about these placement rates? I realize some schools post this information and others don't; others offer up a vague list of schools where they've placed people but don't give any specific information about when or who. Where might I look for more information?

When you're accepted, the programs tend to be very forthcoming with this information. Every school that accepted me (regardless of where they're ranked) has offered up a list of recent placements (including type: TT, fellowship, visiting, etc, dates, and sometimes the field/diss adviser/diss title). I suspect that programs with stronger placements tend to advertise it...but actually, some of the ones that didn't list the info placed quite well.

I haven't actually tried, but my gut instinct says that this isn't the sort of thing that you should be asking about before you have an offer in hand (but once you do, ask away!), so if it's not posed, you might be applying somewhat blind in that regard.

[hadunc]

I don't know, guys. I'm really thinking that they are, at least for me. A waste of time, that is. Because I applied to Ohio State and Penn State this round, and OSU got a record 400 apps and at the same time cut their entering class numbers in half, while PSU got 700 apps. I just can't compete with that, and that's OHIO STATE and PENN STATE, not to mention what's going on at UPenn and the like.

I am in the process of really buckling down and doing research- reading every single faculty page and reading choice publications or selections. This will take me probably the rest of the year, which is fine. But I'm not going to apply to a top tier school unless, after doing that research, I am floored with excitement. And right now it looks like Michigan might be doing that for me. But Cornell and Rutgers did not, even though they impressed me. I have to be blown away to spend my time. At least that's my philosophy right now. And in the meantime I'll be researching schools like UW Milwaukee (which I can never spell) and Arizona.

Hi Woolfie,

I apologize if I'm thinking of the wrong person because I don't remember which topic it was posted under but I'm pretty sure you told me earlier that you were looking into digital studies as a subfield and asked about SUNY-Buffalo. I was also accepted to UW-Milwaukee and I can tell you they are a great school for digital and cultural studies. Check out their modern studies track. Also, I was told by one of the faculty members that they will be adding a digital studies PhD track within the next couple of years. I'll be visiting sometime in the next few weeks so if you'd like some more info about the school feel free to PM me!

[woolfie]

Hi Woolfie,

I apologize if I'm thinking of the wrong person because I don't remember which topic it was posted under but I'm pretty sure you told me earlier that you were looking into digital studies as a subfield and asked about SUNY-Buffalo. I was also accepted to UW-Milwaukee and I can tell you they are a great school for digital and cultural studies. Check out their modern studies track. Also, I was told by one of the faculty members that they will be adding a digital studies PhD track within the next couple of years. I'll be visiting sometime in the next few weeks so if you'd like some more info about the school feel free to PM me!

Yes that was me and yes! I was actually *just* reading about UWM's program and faculty. And I was, in turn, getting very excited about it. I didn't know that about the digital studies track, that sounds perfect! Let me know after you visit how it went, I'd love to hear more about the program.

I have to admit, both Buffalo and Milwaukee are not in my top locations, but you never know what a place is like until you live there. Right now I'm researching UC Santa Barbara and they seem to be a good program for digital studies as well and I wouldn't mind living in Santa Barbara

[BrandNewName]

hi guys, sorry to throw myself into this conversation, but i too am interested in digital studies/technology and literature, etc. enough so that i am considering making it the main focus of my proposals/applications.

i've done a bit of digging, unfortunately most of the time it seems like programs in media and culture might be a better fit for me, but i think i'm a stronger applicant to english/american studies programs.

can either of you suggest some other english or american studies programs that you've come across with a strong emphasis in digital studies or at least one or two quality professors working in the area?

[hadunc]

On 3/11/2010 at 11:12 AM, outofredink said:

hi guys, sorry to throw myself into this conversation, but i too am interested in digital studies/technology and literature, etc. enough so that i am considering making it the main focus of my proposals/applications.

i've done a bit of digging, unfortunately most of the time it seems like programs in media and culture might be a better fit for me, but i think i'm a stronger applicant to english/american studies programs.

can either of you suggest some other english or american studies programs that you've come across with a strong emphasis in digital studies or at least one or two quality professors working in the area?

This is certainly not an exhaustive list, but some that I've come across are the University of Pittsburgh, Penn State, Carnegie Mellon, Washington University in St. Louis (Joe Loewenstein), Duke (the literature department, where Katherine Hayles works), Loyola Chicago, CU Boulder, and Indiana-Bloomington. I focused mainly on the midwest and east coast as my target areas, so I don't know much about which schools have good programs on the west coast. Hope that gives you a good start! It's great to see more people who are interested in the field.

[BrandNewName]

That's great - thank you!

I too am geographically restricting my applications, mainly to the East Coast, though I may throw a few Midwest and West Coast schools into the mix if there is something I absolutely love. I live in Germany now and my family is in PA/MD/NJ...I can't imagine moving back to America only to end up 3000 miles away again, plus my partner might be staying behind in Germany meaning that I need to be in or near a city with an international airport servicing Berlin or Frankfurt (at a reasonable price).

Back to the point, these are great suggestions.

I am familiar with Duke's program, primarily because of Hayles and her work. Truth be told though, I feel myself starting to shift away from a desire to work with posthuman theory...maybe it's just because my current adviser/boss thinks it's crap. Hence why I am trying to get out of here.

Penn State was also on my radar though admittedly I have a long-standing bias against believing that PSU is a good school. I know it is, their English program is great, but having grown up in the state where 1 in 6 (I believe) graduate from PSU, I have always had this violent reaction to the thought of being a student there.

Carnegie Mellon and UPitt are schools I haven't explored yet, though I would love studying in Pittsburgh if one of the programs was a good fit.

So the suggestions are really, really appreciated. Thanks!

[hadunc]

That's great - thank you!

I too am geographically restricting my applications, mainly to the East Coast, though I may throw a few Midwest and West Coast schools into the mix if there is something I absolutely love. I live in Germany now and my family is in PA/MD/NJ...I can't imagine moving back to America only to end up 3000 miles away again, plus my partner might be staying behind in Germany meaning that I need to be in or near a city with an international airport servicing Berlin or Frankfurt (at a reasonable price).

Back to the point, these are great suggestions.

I am familiar with Duke's program, primarily because of Hayles and her work. Truth be told though, I feel myself starting to shift away from a desire to work with posthuman theory...maybe it's just because my current adviser/boss thinks it's crap. Hence why I am trying to get out of here.

Penn State was also on my radar though admittedly I have a long-standing bias against believing that PSU is a good school. I know it is, their English program is great, but having grown up in the state where 1 in 6 (I believe) graduate from PSU, I have always had this violent reaction to the thought of being a student there.

Carnegie Mellon and UPitt are schools I haven't explored yet, though I would love studying in Pittsburgh if one of the programs was a good fit.

So the suggestions are really, really appreciated. Thanks!

Glad to help! I forgot to mention that SUNY-Stonybrook would also be a good school to look into, and it sounds like it would fit your geographic target area pretty well.

[jb3ka]

This relates to an earlier topic in the thread, but one that I'd like to share as an encouragement, anyway. I have been admitted to four programs this year: two top ten, two ranked somewhere in the twenties, and wait listed at two others (both top ten). My GPA is okay (3.6), GRE's pretty good (Verbal: good, Quant.: miserable, Writing: miserable), but nothing exceptional overall. I also come from a little-known college in the South. At every school, the DGS indicated that my writing sample was what got me in. My numbers just (barely) got me through the initial cuts.

All in all, if you and your professors think you've got an excellent writing sample, you have a crack at getting into a top program. While fit is a crucial matter, departments still want the best. The most tried-and-true indicator of success in graduate school and beyond is, in the end, the writing sample.

[lifealive]

It depends what you want to do with your degree. If you *just* want the chance to study literature for 5-7 years, with the understanding that your education may or may not prepare you to be competitive on the job market, than perhaps the "low tier" schools are worth it. Certainly, there are some very good scholars (working in awesome places!) who came out of these less competitive (and possibly less rigorous) programs...but I sense that they are the exceptions rather than the rule. If you have your heart set on an R1 or elite SLAC job, then perhaps you'd want to aim for the programs with much stronger placement (which tends to be the higher-ranking ones, though this isn't a direct correlation). Obviously, there are no guarantees either way--a *good* tenure-track placement is 60-70%...which is still a gamble (though you have 5-7 years to try to load the dice).

I understand what you're saying here, but I want to offer an alternative viewpoint. There's an assumption emerging here that ONLY those who attend top schools have a solid chance of finding employment, and that everyone else is, well, kind of screwed.

I went to a "low tier" school for my MA. As in, ranked in the 70s. The program had a TT job placement rating of over 90%, and when factoring in non-TT work or visiting assistant professorships, a placement rating of 100%.

Why? Simple. People had different expectations. The students graduating from this program knew that they were never going to teach at Penn State, Wisconsin-Madison, or UCSB. Or most national SLACs for that matter. So they built solid teaching portfolios, worked on publishing, and took on other extra projects (journals, writing programs, writing centers, etc.). When they went on the job market, many of them were pleasantly surprised. Why? Because there are so many schools out there--and no, not just in the hinterlands or the deep south--who don't want to hire Harvard or Berkeley. Who want to hire someone who will stick around and not run off when an R1 position opens up. Who won't sacrifice teaching to pursue research. Who will "fit in" to a collegiate culture that privileges students over pursuing some obscure research topic. Harvard and Berkeley PhDs are going to fit in at certain teaching-oriented colleges as well as a Ball State PhD would fit in at Northwestern.

This, I think, is why the placement rating is such a big concern for people who go to big-name programs. There are certain jobs they just can't (or won't) do. And schools know this. Many people graduate from top-tier programs with a mere year of teaching experience. Yeah, they better find a job at an R1. What else are they going to do?

So, it all depends on what you want out of life. If you are driven to publish your books and monographs and feel just so-so about teaching, then you will probably be very disappointed in the job market. Most jobs out there are for teachers, and yes, most research positions go to those who graduate from big-name schools. But if you're like me--okay with the possibility of teaching students of ALL levels (from community college to elite SLACs), under no illusions about my own capabilities of actually etching a name in a field where most everything has already been said--then you may be pleasantly surprised by this field. I think the most important thing is to keep your expectations low, and get some teaching experience, and you may be pleasantly surprised.