New to Grad Cafe--English Lit Questions

[bfat]

Hi Everyone,

This is my first post here, though I've spent some time lurking around and reading posts. I'm interested in applying to an English Lit PhD program in the 11-12 application cycle, and I've been doing a lot of research into the best programs. However, I have some concerns because my undergraduate degree is not in English, and I'm curious as to how important this really is. I have a BA in Film with a minor in French, and I'm currently working toward an MS in Professional Writing at Towson University (a mid-level state school). My undergrad GPAis 3.98, and I'm hoping to pull a 4.0 in my Master's. I'm also taking a few literature courses to beef up my transcript. Does this sound reasonable? Am I crazy to want to apply to Cornell and Yale and UMichigan and UPenn and UVA without a BA in English?

Also, I'm freaking terrified of the GRE Lit test.

Thanks for any advice!

bfat

[wanderlust07]

Welcome, bfat!

I'm going to give the blitz version, in complete faith that others will soon chime in.

Re. applying to the PhD in English w/o the BA. My (admittedly from outside the adcoms) sense is that the single most important things would be:

1. for you to be able to answer, both for yourself and on your Statements of Purpose, why you want to switch--are you applying to programs with a film studies emphasis? ones in writing/composition? Are there parts of your undergrad or current program that will carry over or that have informed your emerging interests? Figuring out what sort of research you might want to do and how it is related to your other interests will be more helpful than the GRE.

2. Related to 1, why these schools? Are there specific people there you want to work with? Specific parts of their programs that appeal to you?

3. Your GPA makes you sound like a very promising student, but it's hard to tell from this either why you're making this move or how theory-heavy your coursework has been. Do any of your new lit courses involve working with theory/criticism? This will both help prepare you for graduate work in literature and (more importantly) help you make sure you WANT to.

re. the Lit GRE--having the English BA would have given you some leg up in that you would have had more built-in exposure to a lot of the texts and names referenced. Don't panic, though--It really is the cocktail party approach to literature. (I've heard they are moving to some analysis/close reading questions, but I haven't taken it in years, so I'll defer to someone else on how that looks). The consensus seems to be that the various review books are inevitably out of date but better than nothing. If nothing else, investing a few bucks in a used Princeton Review or the equivalent would give you a rough idea of the breadth of texts and periods, the structure of the test, and a some extra practice tests with which to time yourself. I took the test twice (vast overconfidence in round one...) and used a review book to make flashcards of names and texts I didn't know and to build a reading list of stuff "I should have read by now." I had to push back my application another year for other reasons, so I had extra time to study for round two, but I did wind up raising the score almost 100 pts, FWIW.

-Double check to see if schools you're applying to really need the subject test. Some refuse to even look at it (even big name schools), and some only use it as an arbitrary cut off or for funding.

My two bits would be to consider fit before anything else and to consider applying for a range of schools, including ones that allow alternative tracks (placing your application in the MA pool if it doesn't make the PhD cut, funded MAs, etc), if only because I think everyone in our field is at least a little crazy .

[bfat]

Hi wanderlust,

Thanks for the quick and thorough reply! Just a little more about me...

In high school, I loved English, and I was always very good at it. I love literature and grammar (even diagramming sentences), and especially writing. I was, however, lured by the glamor of film, which I also greatly enjoyed. I did film production, but I also took a lot of theory courses, specifically genre theory, gender theory, and cultural studies. These branches in film are very much derived from English studies, so I feel like it's natural to move from one to the other. My MS in Professional Writing is giving me a good rhet/comp background for teaching writing, and I'm trying to squeeze the literature courses in there to give me a better foundation and to catch up.

As far as the schools, I've been doing research for several months, creating Excel documents listing program details, information about funding, job statistics, types of courses offered, and city information. I have binders. With lots of pages.

I do plan to take as many lit theory courses as possible, though if I want to finish the program in 2 years, I won't be able to do a master's thesis and all the lit courses I want. So I'll have to sacrifice one or the other.

I have a huge study guide for the GRE Lit test, but my worry is that I don't have all those foundational courses in literature that most English students have, and with working full time and earning a master's, I'm not sure I have the time to learn the entire history of literature in English. Almost all the schools I want to apply for require the exam, so I guess there's not much to do except make flashcards until they start coming out me ears.

Thanks again for the input!

bfat

[shepardn7]

I have a huge study guide for the GRE Lit test, but my worry is that I don't have all those foundational courses in literature that most English students have, and with working full time and earning a master's, I'm not sure I have the time to learn the entire history of literature in English. Almost all the schools I want to apply for require the exam, so I guess there's not much to do except make flashcards until they start coming out me ears.

Don't worry; the test is not too important. But if your test is anything like mine, you won't need to learn canonical history at all to get a good score. While some of the texts will be non-canonical pieces from canonical authors, only a sorry few will be canonical texts from those authors (think--the most obvious Keats poem). A few will be non-canonical texts from non-canonical authors. Most of the test will gauge your ability to speed-read and interpret ETS-style under pressure. I spent most of my study period memorizing "facts" and reading the Norton anthologies. This did not help me on test day, when I scored lower than I had on any of my practice tests, all of which used a similar structure; I barely saw anything I had read in all my studying. What I needed to do instead was devise for myself an entire timed test with medium to long reading passages culled from previous practice tests, and then analyze my own answers to see where I was going right or wrong in my "thinking." When you look at practice tests, I advise you to focus at least somewhat on the reading strategy ETS expects you to take. If you make flashcards, I would use them for literary terms, rather than author-title-summaries, and I would brush up on some theory and grammar (you will likely be asked to identify a grammatical unit in a lengthy sentence). Also, there seemed to be quite a few questions that asked which word in a passage was used archaically, or the closest definition of a particular word in the context of a passage.

[alexdelarge]

I killed myself studying for the GRE Lit test. Aftering talking with several POI and admissions people, they said its one of the items of lower importance. What one english grad dept. head told me was It will make a difference if you do astoudingly well, or astoundingly poor.

[woolfie]

Don't worry; the test is not too important. But if your test is anything like mine, you won't need to learn canonical history at all to get a good score. While some of the texts will be non-canonical pieces from canonical authors, only a sorry few will be canonical texts from those authors (think--the most obvious Keats poem). A few will be non-canonical texts from non-canonical authors. Most of the test will gauge your ability to speed-read and interpret ETS-style under pressure. I spent most of my study period memorizing "facts" and reading the Norton anthologies. This did not help me on test day, when I scored lower than I had on any of my practice tests, all of which used a similar structure; I barely saw anything I had read in all my studying. What I needed to do instead was devise for myself an entire timed test with medium to long reading passages culled from previous practice tests, and then analyze my own answers to see where I was going right or wrong in my "thinking." When you look at practice tests, I advise you to focus at least somewhat on the reading strategy ETS expects you to take. If you make flashcards, I would use them for literary terms, rather than author-title-summaries, and I would brush up on some theory and grammar (you will likely be asked to identify a grammatical unit in a lengthy sentence). Also, there seemed to be quite a few questions that asked which word in a passage was used archaically, or the closest definition of a particular word in the context of a passage.

I want to second this. I spent all summer/fall studying for this stupid test, and I did the same- read through all the Nortons and read classics I hadn't read. I think in the end it helped me with maybe one or two questions. It's difficult because there are not very many practice tests out there- I took two and they were the only ones I could find. I ended up in the 36 percentile but on my the ETS practice test I got in the 75th. I think that ETS intentionally makes their practice test easy so that the test is very competitive. I have a hard time with test anxiety and I would read a passage and have to read it a second time and just not calm down enough to comprehend it. This is what got me, I didn't end up finishing the test, I had about 40 questions left when the time was up. If there is a way to practice reading under pressure, I would do that instead of studying Nortons. Maybe spend one weekend on Nortons, just the very famous stuff as a refresher. I tried to do everything and it was pointless.

Edited January 25, 2011 by woolfie

[woolfie]

I killed myself studying for the GRE Lit test. Aftering talking with several POI and admissions people, they said its one of the items of lower importance. What one english grad dept. head told me was It will make a difference if you do astoudingly well, or astoundingly poor.

What is considered astoundingly poor? Most sites say that their accepted applicants should score in the 75th. Though everyone I have ever known has scored lower than this.

[bfat]

I have a hard time with test anxiety and I would read a passage and have to read it a second time and just not calm down enough to comprehend it. This is what got me, I didn't end up finishing the test, I had about 40 questions left when the time was up. If there is a way to practice reading under pressure, I would do that instead of studying Nortons. Maybe spend one weekend on Nortons, just the very famous stuff as a refresher. I tried to do everything and it was pointless.

Hrm... me too. That's really what I'm afraid of--either I get into a groove when taking a test and do awesome, or I have a complete panic attack and bomb it. And I don't read very fast, so I feel like this test will put me on the fast track to chokesville. Too bad anti-anxiety meds make me sleepy.

[truckbasket]

I hate to turn this into a GRE thread, but I was an English major who won a ton of awards and scholarships in the field, had a very strong working knowledge of the canon, and an even better understanding of the history of criticism -- and I did absolutely lousy on the subject test (29th percentile). I studied all the ETS prep information, Norton anthologies, and took 9 practice tests. I made over 2000 flash cards (and had them all memorized within a period of about 6 months) and still did terrible. The test I took bore little resemblance to anything in test preps or even the practice tests on the ETS website.

The good news is more and more institutions are not just making the test optional, they are flat out rejecting it. It seems that the way to do well on it is to develop the superhuman skill of speed reading long, complex passages in under 10 seconds -- and top programs are not really looking for people who can cut corners, but people who had read closely and carefully, engaging with the material. If I were you, I'd refresh on the canon, get very comfortable with the history of theory (not just 20th century), and get into the practice of serious serious speed reading -- but don't worry about it much more than that. Try and nail the verbal part of the GRE standard which does require similar speed-reading, but not as much. Plus, the vocab memorization necessary for that test is actually practical!

As far as your initial topic goes, mixing media with literature is quite the desirable direction right now. The field is flooded with 19th and 20th straight lit. scholars, so finding a way to diversify by crossing disciplines will work in your favor. You would need to make a compelling argument as to why you would want to study lit. through a film lens, but it shouldn't be hard to do. I myself do Art History and Lit and blend them simply by looking at the similar artistic revolutions that were occurring surround the modernist era, and the cultural impulses that inform them. Look up some big-name scholars who work across such disciplines -- Leo Braudy at USC is a big one. Read a couple of his texts, send him an email -- see what you learn that way. Also, familiarize yourself with the direction the field is headed (digital humanities has been, and continues to be, big right now -- as does disability studies).

The field is changing and becoming much more trans-disciplinary, so diversifying your research will ultimately be a good thing. Just finding the compelling way to frame it will be the key.

Good luck!

[shepardn7]

I have a hard time with test anxiety and I would read a passage and have to read it a second time and just not calm down enough to comprehend it. This is what got me, I didn't end up finishing the test, I had about 40 questions left when the time was up.

This is almost exactly what happened to me. I also have severe standardized test anxiety, and I did a much better job conquering it for my General GRE than my GRE Lit. I left about 40 blank (though not all at the end--I did some strategic skipping and looked ahead to the end of the test to answer what I knew for sure I could) because I was re-reading passages, which you really have no time to do. You just have to skim, answer, and move on. I would read a passage and the words wouldn't register in my brain. I would have no idea what I'd just read. Like water through a goddamn sieve. So I'd read it again, and sometimes read it a third time. I was just freaking out. I wonder how much better I would have done if I had had taken some Xanax or even an anti-ADD med, because I think it was my difficulty focusing past my anxiety that truly cost me. As awful and expensive as this sounds, OP, I would suggest taking the test twice (Oct and Nov, or April and Oct). If you do well the first time, great. If you don't, then you know what to expect and can work on ways you might improve for the second test. If I knew I had another chance, I suspect my anxiety level would have been somewhat lower. Just a thought. And always remember that the test is not held in high esteem. It's a formality, even more so than the General GRE, so there's no need to have a heart attack over it (erm...like I was). Just do your best under the conditions and focus on your writing sample and statement.

[wanderlust07]

As far as your initial topic goes, mixing media with literature is quite the desirable direction right now. The field is flooded with 19th and 20th straight lit. scholars, so finding a way to diversify by crossing disciplines will work in your favor. You would need to make a compelling argument as to why you would want to study lit. through a film lens, but it shouldn't be hard to do. I myself do Art History and Lit and blend them simply by looking at the similar artistic revolutions that were occurring surround the modernist era, and the cultural impulses that inform them. Look up some big-name scholars who work across such disciplines -- Leo Braudy at USC is a big one. Read a couple of his texts, send him an email -- see what you learn that way. Also, familiarize yourself with the direction the field is headed (digital humanities has been, and continues to be, big right now -- as does disability studies).

THIS.

There are plenty of programs that either have a film studies field subsumed into the English department, offer a film studies certificate/permit cinema and media as part of a scholar's general breadth work, or are at least closely affiliated with the film department if it is separate. Looking for particular approaches from those theoretical texts, finding the authors, and then finding out where they're working and what they're doing now, is another way to build a list of schools around your interests. (One of the advantages of working with film, as opposed to 19th century lit for example, is that there is much less likelihood of the big name people you admire being retired/deceased...Although I suppose I'm assuming your interest is mostly contemporary film...)

I also realize we've glommed onto film--hey, shiny!--but the rhet/comp direction is definitely another place to go. I am not at all into rhet/comp, but there certainly people on these boards who can give you a sense of how those programs could fit your interest/background.

re. the GRE: By "cocktail party" I meant strict memorization of names/associations and the ability to quickly recognize the big name styles. I think there are ways to use the test books productively depending on your strengths and weaknesses, but I want to reiterate the fact that some departments don't use the test at all, or if they do, not for much.