Fall 2016 Entry Applicants

[SoyCoffee]

Both of those schools are fine options. Leah Marcus is at Vanderbilt, and she does really good work. I believe she edited the collected works of Elizabeth I a few years back. I applied to BU last year and still think highly of their program. The only downside to them is the low stipend (relative to Boston's cost of living) and their small admit class. Last year they took in a grand total of five people. 

 

Only five? 

 

[Dr. Old Bill]

Only five? 

 

 

That seems to be par for the course, unfortunately. Using the very unscientific methodology of observing acceptance results on GC in this past cycle, it really seems as though a lot of institutions that used to take 12 - 14 students took 8 - 10 instead...and those that used to take 9 - 11 took 5 - 7 etc. There are plenty of exceptions, but it's quite clear that in this past year, acceptance rates were much lower.

 

Correlation is not causation etc., so maybe it has something to do with a higher-than-average number of people at these institutions taking longer to finish their degrees, or a variety of other possibilities...but yeah. 2 - 5% is a pretty standard acceptance rate for the top 50 (and even beyond).

Edited June 26, 2015 by Wyatt's Torch

[screamingacrossthesky]

Hi fellow 2016ers!

 

I am actually reaching out to the folks who have been successful in recent years.  One of my recommenders suggested getting sample SoPs and I've found a couple, but none of them are in my area of interest or time period.  I am hoping some of the kind folks on this board who are Americanists and/or contemporary/post-45ists might be willing to share their SoPs by PM.   If not, I totally understand.  I have a fair sense of my proposed project, but it feels like a Slinky: one day it is to thin for a dissertation and the next day it seems way too big.  In particular, I'm hoping to get some help in determining the appropriate scope of a proposed topic of future research in an SoP.  I'm also curious about the extent of the groundwork that is necessary to lay out with respect to proposed methodology and/or theoretical framework and references to contemporary scholars working in the proposed field.  Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated!

[1Q84]

Leah Marcus is at Vanderbilt, 

 

Just chiming in to say I'm a huge Leah Marcus fanboy. What I would give to work with her!

[SoyCoffee]

That seems to be par for the course, unfortunately. Using the very unscientific methodology of observing acceptance results on GC in this past cycle, it really seems as though a lot of institutions that used to take 12 - 14 students took 8 - 10 instead...and those that used to take 9 - 11 took 5 - 7 etc. There are plenty of exceptions, but it's quite clear that in this past year, acceptance rates were much lower.

 

Correlation is not causation etc., so maybe it has something to do with a higher-than-average number of people at these institutions taking longer to finish their degrees, or a variety of other possibilities...but yeah. 2 - 5% is a pretty standard acceptance rate for the top 50 (and even beyond).

 

Thanks for clarifying. It's really depressing though...  knowing our chances are slim at best... 

[SoyCoffee]

Just chiming in to say I'm a huge Leah Marcus fanboy. What I would give to work with her!

 

Is she still interested in women-writers? It's hard to tell, she has so many interests!

[Ramus]

Is she still interested in women-writers? It's hard to tell, she has so many interests!

 

The best way to answer that question is to send her an email. If you described your interests/potential projects, she'd let you know if she might be interested in working with you. 

[jhefflol]

Hi all~! 

 

Any suggestions for Renaissance students focusing on rhetoric and women-writers? 

 

Applying for PHD (I hold a BA & MA in English Lit.), 

thinking about: 

Oxford

UCL 

Toronto

Chicago

Penn 

 

But all of these are very very selective and competitive... I haven't taken the GRE / GRE Subject yet so I don't really know what my chances are at this point but in any case I'm looking for good Renaissance programs that aren't necessarily top 10-20...

 

Renaissance women's writing was the slant I took last application season. I applied to UC Irvine (Julia Lupton), Boston University (William Carrol), Tufts (Judith Haber), and Syrcause (Dympna Callaghan), just to add a few options on top of the places you've already mentioned

[SoyCoffee]

Renaissance women's writing was the slant I took last application season. I applied to UC Irvine (Julia Lupton), Boston University (William Carrol), Tufts (Judith Haber), and Syrcause (Dympna Callaghan), just to add a few options on top of the places you've already mentioned

 

Hi!

Thanks for the suggestions! 

Is William Carroll into women's writing? Seems like a Shakespeare guy through and through... I thought more along the lines of Erin Murphy or Christopher Martin... 

[jhefflol]

Hi!

Thanks for the suggestions! 

Is William Carroll into women's writing? Seems like a Shakespeare guy through and through... I thought more along the lines of Erin Murphy or Christopher Martin... 

Yeah I think you're right. I have a large spreadsheet with faculty that I spent forever researching, so I'm sure there's a reason why I put him on my list. I do also have Erin Murphy, Christopher Martin, and Amy Appleford in that same list as well. I'd be happy to email the spreadsheet to you if you'd like. There's a bit of extra stuff in there because I'm truly interested in transatlantic gender studies and some of that pops up, but if you'd like to look at it, let me know! I have close to 20 spreadsheets from last year's application season, so I'd be more than happy to share the spoils of my obsessive planning habits.

[Dr. Old Bill]

Yeah I think you're right. I have a large spreadsheet with faculty that I spent forever researching, so I'm sure there's a reason why I put him on my list. I do also have Erin Murphy, Christopher Martin, and Amy Appleford in that same list as well. I'd be happy to email the spreadsheet to you if you'd like. There's a bit of extra stuff in there because I'm truly interested in transatlantic gender studies and some of that pops up, but if you'd like to look at it, let me know! I have close to 20 spreadsheets from last year's application season, so I'd be more than happy to share the spoils of my obsessive planning habits.

 

Actually, my potential advisor, Theresa Coletti, is a specialist in renaissance literature and women's studies as well. So...UMD is a possibility, Jheff, if you plan on giving it another shot.

[SoyCoffee]

Yeah I think you're right. I have a large spreadsheet with faculty that I spent forever researching, so I'm sure there's a reason why I put him on my list. I do also have Erin Murphy, Christopher Martin, and Amy Appleford in that same list as well. I'd be happy to email the spreadsheet to you if you'd like. There's a bit of extra stuff in there because I'm truly interested in transatlantic gender studies and some of that pops up, but if you'd like to look at it, let me know! I have close to 20 spreadsheets from last year's application season, so I'd be more than happy to share the spoils of my obsessive planning habits.

 

WOW! Thanks! 

I'd love to read it!! 

[Metaellipses]

Thanks!!! I'll check these out too 

I'm applying to English Lit programs. My focus is women's rhetoric in the Renaissance... not rhetoric per se.

  Hey Soy,

 

Ann Baynes Coiro and Jacqueline Miller both work on Renaissance women at Rutgers. Jackie works on rhetoric and style in early modern texts written by women (mostly Mary Wroth and Margaret Cavendish)  and Ann's research is on domesticity, marriage, and political rhetoric in early modern poetry (esp. Milton). Also, in the medieval period, Stacy Klein does pre-modern feminist theory and writings by women (although that might be only tangentially related to your interests).

[SoyCoffee]

  Hey Soy,

 

Ann Baynes Coiro and Jacqueline Miller both work on Renaissance women at Rutgers. Jackie works on rhetoric and style in early modern texts written by women (mostly Mary Wroth and Margaret Cavendish)  and Ann's research is on domesticity, marriage, and political rhetoric in early modern poetry (esp. Milton). Also, in the medieval period, Stacy Klein does pre-modern feminist theory and writings by women (although that might be only tangentially related to your interests).

 

Thanks!! 

Excellent suggestion! 

[Romanista]

Does anyone know which comp rhet PhD programs are open to cognitive approaches to writing; studying process more so than product? I'm guessing that these schools would be a good fit:

 

CUNY Grad Center (Perl)

Minnesota (Berkenkotter)

Carnegie Mellon (Flower)

 

I know that empirical research in writing isn't nearly as empirical and pure as it would be in the actual sciences but I feel like composition has to go this route for any sort of legitimacy, otherwise it's just going to be known as a service discipline composed of writing instructors who teach well but don't publish, and tenured scholars who publish without referencing student writing and or the writing process (because postmodernism and cultural studies are supposedly so much more interesting). Composition can be just as insular and subjective as literary studies but it need not be.

[Between Fields]

Does anyone know which comp rhet PhD programs are open to cognitive approaches to writing; studying process more so than product? I'm guessing that these schools would be a good fit:

 

CUNY Grad Center (Perl)

Minnesota (Berkenkotter)

Carnegie Mellon (Flower)

 

I know that empirical research in writing isn't nearly as empirical and pure as it would be in the actual sciences but I feel like composition has to go this route for any sort of legitimacy, otherwise it's just going to be known as a service discipline composed of writing instructors who teach well but don't publish, and tenured scholars who publish without referencing student writing and or the writing process (because postmodernism and cultural studies are supposedly so much more interesting). Composition can be just as insular and subjective as literary studies but it need not be.

 

Just know that I had a minor conniption before responding, re: your last paragraph, and will make the following bullet points in a not unfriendly way:

• Empirical research in any field is necessarily constrained by the rhetorical situation in which it is performed and the ways in which the data are constructed into a narrative (see Bruno Latour). The objective/subjective dichotomy is perpetuated on a truly objective state that does not currently exist in scholarship. The effectiveness of writing is entirely driven by qualitative factors.
• Research in writing is empirical and qualitiative but that does not mean that it is less valid or legitimate than quantitative data sources. Qualitative data are complex and complicated and messy, but so is quantitative data until it is stripped down to its statistics and presented in a journal. Trying to make rhetoric and composition into science or to make it mathematically-sound is a fool's errand because that sort of data fails to represent adequately the complexity of writing in the way that it is often presented. It leads to single-score, Pearson-branded, ETS-endorsed psychometric hogwash. 
• The majority of scholarship in rhetoric and composition is driven by studies with actual students. Even the most practical, pedagogical papers generally refer to the scholar's own students and their responses to a proposed intervention. It's definitely a data-driven field.

Are you interested in cognitive approaches to writing, i.e. psychometrics, or a cognitivist approach, i.e. an examination of writers' processes? Looking at process is pretty standard in the field now. The process vs. product debate is pretty much settled in most corners, anyway.

[Romanista]

Just know that I had a minor conniption before responding, re: your last paragraph, and will make the following bullet points in a not unfriendly way:

• Empirical research in any field is necessarily constrained by the rhetorical situation in which it is performed and the ways in which the data are constructed into a narrative (see Bruno Latour). The objective/subjective dichotomy is perpetuated on a truly objective state that does not currently exist in scholarship. The effectiveness of writing is entirely driven by qualitative factors.
• Research in writing is empirical and qualitiative but that does not mean that it is less valid or legitimate than quantitative data sources. Qualitative data are complex and complicated and messy, but so is quantitative data until it is stripped down to its statistics and presented in a journal. Trying to make rhetoric and composition into science or to make it mathematically-sound is a fool's errand because that sort of data fails to represent adequately the complexity of writing in the way that it is often presented. It leads to single-score, Pearson-branded, ETS-endorsed psychometric hogwash. 
• The majority of scholarship in rhetoric and composition is driven by studies with actual students. Even the most practical, pedagogical papers generally refer to the scholar's own students and their responses to a proposed intervention. It's definitely a data-driven field.

Are you interested in cognitive approaches to writing, i.e. psychometrics, or a cognitivist approach, i.e. an examination of writers' processes? Looking at process is pretty standard in the field now. The process vs. product debate is pretty much settled in most corners, anyway.

 

Well I didn't even know that there was a difference between cognitive and cognitivist so you can see how I'm new to the field. In that case I'm more interested in a cognitivist approach. I admit that my last post was influenced by a scathing critique of the field that I read yesterday (http://www.nas.org/articles/english_compositionism_as_fraud_and_failure). I agree with your first and second points. Your third point brings me great relief.  

[Between Fields]

Well I didn't even know that there was a difference between cognitive and cognitivist so you can see how I'm new to the field. In that case I'm more interested in a cognitivist approach. I admit that my last post was influenced by a scathing critique of the field that I read yesterday (http://www.nas.org/articles/english_compositionism_as_fraud_and_failure). I agree with your first and second points. Your third point brings me great relief.  

 

The NAS is a conservative think tank, so I'd take any article from them with a considerable amount of salt. (There are threads in this very sub-forum that I would take with similar amounts of salt, if you're thinking about rhet/comp.)

 

I don't know of specifically-cognitivist departments, but you're likely to find at least one or two professors in any department offering rhet/comp who might identify that way. Most compositionists study things from several different perspectives. I generally see myself as something between an expressivist and cognitivist and attend Illinois State. I was also pleased with the faculty at Bowling Green State University when I got in there. The U of Arizona and Miami of Ohio programs are also really good.

[lcampb]

I know that empirical research in writing isn't nearly as empirical and pure as it would be in the actual sciences but I feel like composition has to go this route for any sort of legitimacy, otherwise it's just going to be known as a service discipline composed of writing instructors who teach well but don't publish, and tenured scholars who publish without referencing student writing and or the writing process (because postmodernism and cultural studies are supposedly so much more interesting). Composition can be just as insular and subjective as literary studies but it need not be.

I'm not sure where you're at in the application process, but I'd encourage you not to come out with guns blazing in quite this way as you investigate schools and possible mentors in Rhet/Comp. I think you'll find that there are a lot of faculty willing and happy to support more empirical work in composition and that interdisciplinary work (taking classes in statistics, quantitative research, etc.) is encouraged. However, you're likely to alienate people with this kind of critique, which as Between Fields points out (as do many of the commenters on the article you found) is not very in touch with current research.

On that note, I'd also encourage you to start checking out more recent research in composition to get a sense of the kinds of quantitative work that resonates with you. Understand that the cognitivist movement of the 80's is far gone. Flower, in fact, now does research on intercultural inquiry at a community literacy center, precisely the "cultural studies" research you mentioned above. You might start with this site, which offers summaries of recent articles in the field (http://collegecompositionweekly.com/summaries/), or take a look at some of the more empirical-leaning journals in comp (Written Communication and Research in the Teaching of English might be good places to start). Finding contemporary research that resonates and then figuring out where those scholars got their degrees and/or where they teach now can help clue you into appropriate departments.

[BJC]

Hi all,

 

My schools of choice are UChicago, WashU, Columbia, and Pitt for eighteenth century British literature with a focus on women's writing and particular attention to the novels of Mary Darby Robinson. I'm applying straight from undergrad to PhD. I've taken the GREs, compiled the spreadsheet, and already obtained my letters of recommendation. Full funding is my goal. Have you all started S.O.P. yet?

 

-B

[kurayamino]

Hey BJC! I actually applied last year, but I applied for 18th C Brit with a focus on gender as well. I'm not sure what your regional demands are, but I'd also really strongly suggest Rutgers (where I chose to attend) because of their strength in 18th C and their certificate program in women and gender. I'd also suggest two other schools that I was accepted at for their 18th C. strengths as well: UCLA and Indiana-Bloomington. The staff there were all fantastic. Best of luck! Feel free to message me if you have any questions.

[biyutefulphlower]

Hi BJC! I'm applying to UChicago and Columbia too, good luck! I haven't started the S.O.Ps yet, currently turrning my attention to studying for the GRE Lit exam...

[rhetoricus aesalon]

Does anyone know which comp rhet PhD programs are open to cognitive approaches to writing; studying process more so than product? I'm guessing that these schools would be a good fit:

 

CUNY Grad Center (Perl)

Minnesota (Berkenkotter)

Carnegie Mellon (Flower)

 

I know that empirical research in writing isn't nearly as empirical and pure as it would be in the actual sciences but I feel like composition has to go this route for any sort of legitimacy, otherwise it's just going to be known as a service discipline composed of writing instructors who teach well but don't publish, and tenured scholars who publish without referencing student writing and or the writing process (because postmodernism and cultural studies are supposedly so much more interesting). Composition can be just as insular and subjective as literary studies but it need not be.

 

Wow, so this conversation has hit on what I think is a really big issue that has persisted in the field (and on these forums) about the legitimacy of rhet/comp and its contribution to English studies and the university in general. But that's not what you asked about, so l won't get into that beyond quickly saying I think what you're saying here is important, and there is certainly a place for that passion in rhet/comp.

 

Like BetweenFields mentioned, I think you can do cognitivist work in just about any program regardless of who you want to work with. The way you're wanting to use cognitivism here seems to be more as a subject than a methodology -- or maybe you see it as both? The field is overwhelmingly post-process now, so you might consider a specific population you are interested in studying/working with because that will yield more specific programs and scholars  -- I did notice that the three scholars you've listed are all around retirement, which is something you might want to keep in mind.

 

If you are looking for more empirically-learning departments, Carnegie Mellon as a program has that reputation (I think mainly because of its resources and Flower's long presence there). Because of CUNY's funding structure (which I think is changing but as of now requires you work as an adjunct at another campus while going to class) I don't recommend it for the kind of research-intensive work you're suggesting.  But, again, I think you can do empirical work in any department, though it will certainly be easier and less stressful if you land in one that has established experience and support for going through the IRB process and/or is currently funded or applying for funds to conduct research in some of those areas that incorporate more empirical collection of data. I can tell you from experience that Ohio State does (I'm working with faculty on two such projects: one through the Gates Foundation and another funded through the Ohio government). I suggest reaching out to programs and asking if there are faculty that are using external funds for research, which can be a good sign they are doing something empirical. 

 

Another alternative is to find departments that allow you to have a foot in another department. I know UW Madison does, though I recall most students being situated in rhet/comp and either communications or education -- though I'm sure they'd be open to have someone also in psychology.

[Waco-Waco]

Hey to BJC and biyutefulphlower, Chicago's on my list too, but I'm for Poetry and Poetics. I've just made a start on my SOP (or writing sample, or personal statement, or whatever the correct term is) but only pretty casually. I figure it's good to get a framework down early, tinker with it until you're happy with it, and then taylor it accordingly once you've decided on your final list of programs/universities. 

I'm also in that GRE Subject test boat... booked mine for September, very nervous about it. I'm coming from a UK background and am really not accustomed to such broad exams. I plan to look over the Norton anthology contents, a genuinely just try to memorise any author-dates that I might be shaky on. Other than that, I'm not sure what else can be done. I think a lot of it is reading comprehension ('What is the author trying to communicate in this passage? What literary device is the author employing?' etc etc) so there's not much that can be done for that, I think... 

[biyutefulphlower]

Hey Waco-Waco!

 

I just made a post about the GRE Lit exam to see if I could get some advice from past test-takers.  Maybe that'll be of some help to you, too?  I'm also signed up for September (eek!) but trying to weigh if I should really devote the time to it or if I should turn wholeheartedly towards my applications, since most of my schools don't require the test.  So much to do and it will be December before we know it!