Need the Real Story On My Top 5 Programs

[maxined93]

Hello all! I'm an English major getting ready to apply to Ph.D. English Lit programs for Fall 2016, and I'm in need of real talk from someone who's already gone through the process. Specifically, I want to know what other folks have experienced at my top 5 schools (from any specialty/program) and if there's any caveat I can use to narrow down my choices. I'm clueless, so ANY help is much appreciated. My top 5 are:

University of Southern California
Columbia University
Penn State
Emory University
University of Virginia
     
But I'm also thinking about:
Princeton
Yale
Harvard
Stanford
University of Georgia

Please help a girl out, as application time is drawing near!

[1Q84]

It might help to delineate some of your areas of interest and what you are hoping to get out of a Ph.D. program. I might be able to speak to USC, if your interests aren't too far outside my ken.

Edited September 10, 2015 by 1Q84

[Dr. Old Bill]

Yes, they're all great schools. I applied to five of the ones you mention. 1Q84 is right, however -- it's not just about the quality of the school or the quality of the program...it's about what your general interests are within that program, and how you essentially "fit."

The one thing I can confidently say about Penn State is that their program has a good reputation, but their admissions administration is abysmal. You might hear about your rejection after April 15th, or you might not hear at all. Other than that, I had neutral-to-positive experiences with the application process to Princeton, Yale, Harvard, and Stanford. I can't speak to the quality of their programs from within, however.

[Ramus]

Given that most users on this site dial back their activity once they're done with the app season, you probably won't get all the replies you're looking for here.

It's a pain in the ass, but your best bet is to contact graduate students at these programs directly. All of the programs you've listed will have pages listing graduate student bios and contact information. You might not get a response for every email you send, but I think most people are generally willing to give you the straight biz about their program experiences.

If you decide to do this, though, I'd suggest coming up with a short list of specific questions to guide responses. If a prospective student sent me an email asking me to riff on my time in grad school, I might or might not reply, depending on how busy I am. I'd be more inclined to respond to a brief and specific request for more information.  

Edited September 10, 2015 by Ramus

[maxined93]

Thank you all so much! I was told to contact grad students directly, but I wasn't sure if it was the done thing in the humanities. 

   In response to 1Q84 and Wyatt's Terps, I'm interested in a wide range of historical/genre areas, but all my interests are filtered through a gender studies/feminist lens with a bit of postcolonial thrown in. The usual undergrad mix, I suppose.

 

[Dr. Old Bill]

Thank you all so much! I was told to contact grad students directly, but I wasn't sure if it was the done thing in the humanities. 

   In response to 1Q84 and Wyatt's Terps, I'm interested in a wide range of historical/genre areas, but all my interests are filtered through a gender studies/feminist lens with a bit of postcolonial thrown in. The usual undergrad mix, I suppose.

 

This has been said in a bunch of threads elsewhere in months/years past, but for what it's worth...

Specialization is obviously important at grad school level. You know this already, of course, but something I didn't fully realize when I was applying is that many (perhaps most) graduate students don't have an ultra-specific idea of what they want to specialize in when they arrive. Having an area or era is usually good enough. Now, when it comes to filling out your grad school applications, it is important to suggest that you have a firm idea of what you want to do. Committees are investing between two and six (or more) years in you, as well as various funds in most cases, and so they want to know that their "investment" isn't going to flake out or be too whimsical. They want to see indications of focused thought, is what I'm getting at. That does not mean that you need to know that you're going to spend your career working on gender ambiguity issues in Woolf's Orlando, for example. It just means that you should be able to present one solid avenue for future study, supported by a strong writing sample in the area (and all the other aspects). Having said that, bear in mind that most programs are still quite tethered to historical era. When I was introduced to people the other day, the DGS said I was an early modernist. It's true, for the most part, but I haven't officially declared anything one way or another -- it just reflects how I presented myself in my grad school application. If I wanted to, I could leave early modernism in the dust and focus on digital humanities or rhet/comp. Will I? Probably not, but had I fully grasped this notion when I was applying (i.e., if I had treated the SOP and WS as strategic documents geared toward entry, as opposed to documents that outline my entire graduate career), I might have had a better overall showing at grad schools across the board. Or perhaps not. Fortunately I'm very happy where I am, so it's a moot point in my case...but it's worthwhile for you and other new applicants to keep in mind.

 

[othersamantha]

 

This has been said in a bunch of threads elsewhere in months/years past, but for what it's worth...

Specialization is obviously important at grad school level. You know this already, of course, but something I didn't fully realize when I was applying is that many (perhaps most) graduate students don't have an ultra-specific idea of what they want to specialize in when they arrive. Having an area or era is usually good enough. Now, when it comes to filling out your grad school applications, it is important to suggest that you have a firm idea of what you want to do. Committees are investing between two and six (or more) years in you, as well as various funds in most cases, and so they want to know that their "investment" isn't going to flake out or be too whimsical. They want to see indications of focused thought, is what I'm getting at. That does not mean that you need to know that you're going to spend your career working on gender ambiguity issues in Woolf's Orlando, for example. It just means that you should be able to present one solid avenue for future study, supported by a strong writing sample in the area (and all the other aspects). Having said that, bear in mind that most programs are still quite tethered to historical era. When I was introduced to people the other day, the DGS said I was an early modernist. It's true, for the most part, but I haven't officially declared anything one way or another -- it just reflects how I presented myself in my grad school application. If I wanted to, I could leave early modernism in the dust and focus on digital humanities or rhet/comp. Will I? Probably not, but had I fully grasped this notion when I was applying (i.e., if I had treated the SOP and WS as strategic documents geared toward entry, as opposed to documents that outline my entire graduate career), I might have had a better overall showing at grad schools across the board. Or perhaps not. Fortunately I'm very happy where I am, so it's a moot point in my case...but it's worthwhile for you and other new applicants to keep in mind.

 

As a follow up question... I am also planning on applying for Fall 2016 admission, and I have noticed the trend on these fora that everything varies by case and program, but one of the concerns I have is that I have interests in two very different subfields. The subfield I am hoping to pursue is Renaissance (it is what I know the best, and I had the very rewarding experience of writing a successful undergraduate thesis on Shakespeare, from which I will be excerpting my writing sample), but I also love novel studies and 18th and 19th century British literature. In your experience, to what extent can you pursue multiple, possibly irreconcilable interests in a Ph.D. program, and what would the protocol be if you find yourself wanting to change specialization partway in?

 

Again, I know this will all vary case by case, but does anyone have an experience that can speak to this? Thanks!

[Ramus]

As a follow up question... I am also planning on applying for Fall 2016 admission, and I have noticed the trend on these fora that everything varies by case and program, but one of the concerns I have is that I have interests in two very different subfields. The subfield I am hoping to pursue is Renaissance (it is what I know the best, and I had the very rewarding experience of writing a successful undergraduate thesis on Shakespeare, from which I will be excerpting my writing sample), but I also love novel studies and 18th and 19th century British literature. In your experience, to what extent can you pursue multiple, possibly irreconcilable interests in a Ph.D. program, and what would the protocol be if you find yourself wanting to change specialization partway in?

 

Again, I know this will all vary case by case, but does anyone have an experience that can speak to this? Thanks!

Doesn't really happen, at least not two non-consecutive historical periods. You can find a lot of people doing medieval and Renaissance, for example, or medieval and theory X. But you won't find someone who does what you're talking about. That's mostly a consequence of how deeply entrenched periodization is in the field. There are other reasons too, but I think that's the biggest reason why. 

For the purposes of the application, you'll just need to pick one. You can always change when you get to a program, or you can retain the second field as a side interest, one which you can write on later in your career. 

[Dr. Old Bill]

As a follow up question... I am also planning on applying for Fall 2016 admission, and I have noticed the trend on these fora that everything varies by case and program, but one of the concerns I have is that I have interests in two very different subfields. The subfield I am hoping to pursue is Renaissance (it is what I know the best, and I had the very rewarding experience of writing a successful undergraduate thesis on Shakespeare, from which I will be excerpting my writing sample), but I also love novel studies and 18th and 19th century British literature. In your experience, to what extent can you pursue multiple, possibly irreconcilable interests in a Ph.D. program, and what would the protocol be if you find yourself wanting to change specialization partway in?

The answer is a slightly amorphous "usually not." There's typically an expectation of reconciliation of interests. I'm in a rather similar boat as you, in that I like several eras, but have had to narrow down my era at the very least. In my grad school applications last year, I tried to pitch my interest as transhistorical prosody, rooted in the early modern era, but I've ultimately come to be classified as an early modernist, as mentioned above. Sometimes you can gain traction with transhistorical / transatlantic etc. approaches, but grad school remains (again, typically) stratified by era.

ETA: cross-posted with Ramus.

Edited September 14, 2015 by Wyatt's Terps

[unræd]

For the purposes of the application, you'll just need to pick one. You can always change when you get to a program, or you can retain the second field as a side interest, one which you can write on later in your career. 

Ramus is right, and I don't mean to hijack his rightness, but I did want to emphasize his point about changing fields when you're in the early stages of a program: it happens all the time, and very few people will bat an eye. The application process (in the US, not the UK) is weird in that it expects you to lay out a specialization in detail, even the broad glimmers of an actual potential project (!), when absolutely no one will hold you to that. They're passport documents, essentially: once you're in the country, you can (with certain disciplinary restrictions) move around freely.

[1Q84]

Ramus is right, and I don't mean to hijack his rightness, but I did want to emphasize his point about changing fields when you're in the early stages of a program: it happens all the time, and very few people will bat an eye. The application process (in the US, not the UK) is weird in that it expects you to lay out a specialization in detail, even the broad glimmers of an actual potential project (!), when absolutely no one will hold you to that. They're passport documents, essentially: once you're in the country, you can (with certain disciplinary restrictions) move around freely.

Not to add any additional hijacking in here (for me, of the OP's concerns) but I'm glad to hear you say this. I've been feeling very uneasy about where I've landed in my academic field focus and I'm just not sure what to do. Everyone I've asked about it has given me a very political answer ("it's possible, some people do it, can't say if it's a good or bad idea...") and I'm worried about burning bridges with professors in the field I'm considering making secondary.

[Dr. Old Bill]

Not to add any additional hijacking in here (for me, of the OP's concerns) but I'm glad to hear you say this. I've been feeling very uneasy about where I've landed in my academic field focus and I'm just not sure what to do. Everyone I've asked about it has given me a very political answer ("it's possible, some people do it, can't say if it's a good or bad idea...") and I'm worried about burning bridges with professors in the field I'm considering making secondary.

To continue the hijack sequence, I want to add that I'm in the same [hijacked] boat insofar as I have developed some interest in rhet/comp...and have been told by a few people now that "you can do both!" with regard to my interest in early modernism and rhet/comp. I suppose it could be possible, but...how? They're pretty disparate fields. I guess it's just something you have to navigate from within a given program. The issue is exacerbated slightly by the fact that my two favorite professors here so far are an early modernist and a rhet/comp person respectively.

It could all be worse, of course. It's not like we're choosing between lupus and polio. But still, I definitely share your mild frustration.

[othersamantha]

Ramus is right, and I don't mean to hijack his rightness, but I did want to emphasize his point about changing fields when you're in the early stages of a program: it happens all the time, and very few people will bat an eye. The application process (in the US, not the UK) is weird in that it expects you to lay out a specialization in detail, even the broad glimmers of an actual potential project (!), when absolutely no one will hold you to that. They're passport documents, essentially: once you're in the country, you can (with certain disciplinary restrictions) move around freely.

Thank you to everyone for your insight! I particularly like this passport analogy. I'm relieved, this is definitely what I was hoping to hear. It's not that I couldn't see myself pursuing my primary subfield, but more that I can't see myself totally letting go of the other. We'll have to see what happens!

 

With this in mind, does anyone have any insight on reaching out to two POIs from the same institution, in two subfields? Red flag? Maybe this is cause for a separate thread...

[unræd]

Not to add any additional hijacking in here (for me, of the OP's concerns) but I'm glad to hear you say this. I've been feeling very uneasy about where I've landed in my academic field focus and I'm just not sure what to do. Everyone I've asked about it has given me a very political answer ("it's possible, some people do it, can't say if it's a good or bad idea...") and I'm worried about burning bridges with professors in the field I'm considering making secondary.

The bridge-burning thing is obviously dependent on the culture of the department and faculty, so I can't speak to that. And maybe UCB's weird in this, but a big part of all of the cohort-wide meetings/orientationy stuff we've done has been one professor or another (or the DGS) saying "Hey guys, you all applied here to work on a period, but you're not locked into that, so keep yourself open to change and do what you what!" (Hippies, man.) I know two people from last year's cohort were admitted as early modernists, worked on Romantic texts in the intro class, and have now both switched to bring Romanticists. I don't know them, so I can't speak to their experience, but every time I've heard other students and faculty discuss it it's always been in terms of "gee, isn't that cool?!"

Edited September 15, 2015 by unræd

[1Q84]

The bridge-burning thing is obviously dependent on the culture of the department and faculty, so I can't speak to that. And maybe UCB's weird in this, but a big part of all of the cohort-wide meetings/orientationy stuff we've done has been one professor or another (or the DGS) saying "Hey guys, you all applied here to work on a period, but you're not locked into that, so keep yourself open to change and do what you what!" (Hippies, man.) I know two people from last year's cohort were admitted as early modernists, worked on Romantic texts in the intro class, and have now both switched to bring Romanticists. I don't know them, so I can't speak to their experience, but every time I've heard other students and faculty discuss it it's always been in terms of "gee, isn't that cool?!"

Hmm! I'll have to do some more digging about the "vibe" of my department. There is a lot of talk about fluidity of academic interest and interdisciplinary work (though as Ramus notes, that can often just be lipservice). The borders between the Gender Studies/English/American Studies and Ethnicity departments are all seemingly quite porous as well, so I'll hold out hope.

Edited September 15, 2015 by 1Q84

[Horb]

As a follow up question... I am also planning on applying for Fall 2016 admission, and I have noticed the trend on these fora that everything varies by case and program, but one of the concerns I have is that I have interests in two very different subfields. The subfield I am hoping to pursue is Renaissance (it is what I know the best, and I had the very rewarding experience of writing a successful undergraduate thesis on Shakespeare, from which I will be excerpting my writing sample), but I also love novel studies and 18th and 19th century British literature. In your experience, to what extent can you pursue multiple, possibly irreconcilable interests in a Ph.D. program, and what would the protocol be if you find yourself wanting to change specialization partway in?

 

Again, I know this will all vary case by case, but does anyone have an experience that can speak to this? Thanks!

Because with English your money isn't tied to a professor like it is with science, you can usually switch. As for the two different time periods: there is a professor I know of who does Shakespeare and Victorian lit (how the former influences the latter) so it is possible. Also Ren. Studies and 18th century aren't too far away, so you could probably do something with them. Or, you focus on one now and once you land your tenure track job you can focus on the other (or both)!

[othersamantha]

Because with English your money isn't tied to a professor like it is with science, you can usually switch. As for the two different time periods: there is a professor I know of who does Shakespeare and Victorian lit (how the former influences the latter) so it is possible. Also Ren. Studies and 18th century aren't too far away, so you could probably do something with them. Or, you focus on one now and once you land your tenure track job you can focus on the other (or both)!

Thank you for the great advice! Who is the professor you have in mind? I would love to learn more about his/her work! My current strategy is to seek out programs that have strong faculty in both fields, but apply only to one subfield. And then, if accepted, I'll have the opportunity to switch if need be, or to do some combination of the two fields (as you suggest!).

[Horb]

Oh, the Professor I know of is Gail Marshall, who is in the UK currently (teaches at University of Leicester) but I have definitely read people working across those two fields (prominent Shakespearians turning to Victorian lit and vice versa). You could probably find one of her many articles and then look at who she cites to find faculty ideas. Or just run a search on JSTOR if you have access. 

[maxined93]

Thanks all for the lively discussion--and WBWhitman, for the real talk I was hoping for.