Best Early Modern Programs to Consider?

[E_Moose]

I'm very new to this community and have noticed that everyone is generally welcoming and helpful in terms of answering questions and giving info, so I figured I'd ask for some advice from anybody who has experience with Medieval & Early Modern Studies at the M.A. or PhD. level or who might also be applying with a similar emphasis in mind. I'm 23 and completing my B.A. this Fall at CSULB. I've completed all of my Lit courses already but I'm finishing up some trivial required course to get my degree. In the meanwhile, I'm working on an independent study to compose a writing sample for applications, but here's where I need some guidance. Among the programs I have in mind, I'm thinking of Berkeley, UCI, and Columbia, with UCLA being a fallback. Considering my emphasis in Early Modern Lit, are these choices ideal, and what are the chances of my getting in from a unranked school like CSULB? I'm pretty confident in my literary analysis and strength as a writer/researcher, but it would be reassuring to hear from those who have experience with these programs and the application process.

Also, financially speaking, I'm not in the best corner. I was given Federal Aid through all of my undergrad since I come from a low income household, but what will be the case for M.A. programs? Do the institutes I listed provide federal aid for M.A. programs (I know that not all even offer an M.A. program), or is it a better decision to apply to those with PhD. and go for the stipend?

Any answers or advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks! 

[Ramus]

On 10/30/2015 at 7:37 PM, E_Moose said:

Among the programs I have in mind, I'm thinking of Berkeley, UCI, and Columbia, with UCLA being a fallback. Considering my emphasis in Early Modern Lit, are these choices ideal, and what are the chances of my getting in from a unranked school like CSULB?

Berkeley and Columbia are good, of course, as are the other schools in the top ten or fifteen. UCLA should not be a "fallback" on anyone's list, and is really a "reach" school for everyone who applies there. In general, UCI is good but not great for early modern studies.

It's hard to say if you can get into any of those schools with a BA from an unranked state school. It's not unheard of, but I think it'll be a disadvantage to you. (Others will disagree with me on this point.) Higher Ed places a high premium on prestige, and that's not lost on the admissions process. People getting into those top programs straight out of undergrad usually have earned their BAs at top private schools or highly ranked state schools. This general truth is not without exception, and I'm sure others will pipe up here with their own anecdotes complicating what I've said. But all else being equal (test scores, WS quality, quality of LORs, etc.), you'll likely lose out to the candidate that got her degree from a better school. Fair or not, prestige matters.

Now, I realize that sounds like a lot of doom and gloom. But there's a viable alternative to the "top-PhD-or-bust" model you've described: applying to a least a couple of lower ranked, stand-alone MA programs that are fully funded. A number of schools in the Cal system offer this deal, as do a number of the big but less prestigious state schools, schools like Delaware, Alabama, Auburn, Ole Miss -- places like that. (Alabama is especially good as an MA program for EM studies, since they have a private endowment set up to give EM students an additional stipend.) These programs would give you a good opportunity to figure out what grad school and scholarship is really all about, and they do this without sending you 50K into debt, as will some of the cash cow MA programs at top schools (UChicago, Columbia, UVA, etc.). I realize this option doesn't have the sex appeal of a top program, but I think it's the best route for a lot of folks. In addition, it puts you in a better position to make that jump to a top school if you still want to apply after you finish the MA in two years. The down side is that the teaching load at these schools is greater than you'll ever see at a top 30 school; a 2/2 load is not uncommon, and a 2/1 load is usually the best case scenario. But given the choice between a mountain of debt and a heavier teaching load, I'd take the latter every time. 

[E_Moose]

On 10/31/2015, 9:46:50, Ramus said:

Now, I realize that sounds like a lot of doom and gloom. But there's a viable alternative to the "top-PhD-or-bust" model you've described: applying to a least a couple of lower ranked, stand-alone MA programs that are fully funded. A number of schools in the Cal system offer this deal, as do a number of the big but less prestigious state schools, schools like Delaware, Alabama, Auburn, Ole Miss -- places like that. (Alabama is especially good as an MA program for EM studies, since they have a private endowment set up to give EM students an additional stipend.) These programs would give you a good opportunity to figure out what grad school and scholarship is really all about, and they do this without sending you 50K into debt, as will some of the cash cow MA programs at top schools (UChicago, Columbia, UVA, etc.). I realize this option doesn't have the sex appeal of a top program, but I think it's the best route for a lot of folks. In addition, it puts you in a better position to make that jump to a top school if you still want to apply after you finish the MA in two years. The down side is that the teaching load at these schools is greater than you'll ever see at a top 30 school; a 2/2 load is not uncommon, and a 2/1 load is usually the best case scenario. But given the choice between a mountain of debt and a heavier teaching load, I'd take the latter every time. 

I like what you had to say about getting the opportunity to see what "graduate study and scholarship is about," because I think, being at the end of my undergrad, I now know what I want to study and I have ideas about graduate research, specifically, like doing work on the use of props and geography as facilitators and obstacles of transformation in the Early Modern romance genre, utilizing Shakespeare's works in particular, with some Spenser and Medieval works as well. I didn't know I wanted to study this or that I would have a focus by the time I was finishing my last semester or so, so I did not participate in conferences or try to get essays published in student journals. In light of this, I think my CV is underdeveloped for applying to a PhD, regardless of sample paper, GRE scores, LORs, etc. Maybe you are right, and I should give fully funded MA programs a chance first to get more experience, try to publish essays, and build my repertoire. From there, I can aim for the PhD at a decent Medieval and EM program, maybe even the top 10-15. Any input?

[lyonessrampant]

Based on what you've written, I think you'll have much better luck going the funded MA route and then applying after.  Your research interests, for example, sound very broad.  You're combining romance, Shakespearean drama, Spenser, and medieval texts.  Each of those areas is huge and complex.  Interdisciplinary work is great, but it takes a lot more specialization to do it well.  An MA will give you time and space to think about how to hone and focus your research interests.  Even if you do end up doing a dissertation that is interdisciplinary or spans so many texts, you want your research statement in an application to be focused and specific because it shows you can develop a do-able research project.

A funded MA is no guarantee of acceptance at a top 10-15.  Some of those programs tend to favor applicants direct from BA, but those direct-from-BA acceptances usually go to people from top public or private schools.  I went to a tiny liberal arts college and applied to top programs and ended up doing a partially funded MA at UChicago.  I learned a ton and am a much better scholar and researcher, but I would never do it again if I could.  Substantial debt for a humanities graduate degree is a terrible idea.  There are, however, great schools outside of the top 10-15-20.  My university is one of those.  We have multiple research centers, excellent funding, and great archival collections.  Research the programs to match your interests to their strengths rather than selecting where to apply based on the USNWR (or whatever) rankings list.  You'll be happier and do better work at a place where you and your research fits.  Best of luck.

 

[silenus_thescribe]

On 10/31/2015, 11:46:50, Ramus said:

But there's a viable alternative to the "top-PhD-or-bust" model you've described: applying to a least a couple of lower ranked, stand-alone MA programs that are fully funded. A number of schools in the Cal system offer this deal, as do a number of the big but less prestigious state schools, schools like Delaware, Alabama, Auburn, Ole Miss -- places like that. (Alabama is especially good as an MA program for EM studies, since they have a private endowment set up to give EM students an additional stipend.) These programs would give you a good opportunity to figure out what grad school and scholarship is really all about, and they do this without sending you 50K into debt, as will some of the cash cow MA programs at top schools (UChicago, Columbia, UVA, etc.). I realize this option doesn't have the sex appeal of a top program, but I think it's the best route for a lot of folks. In addition, it puts you in a better position to make that jump to a top school if you still want to apply after you finish the MA in two years. The down side is that the teaching load at these schools is greater than you'll ever see at a top 30 school; a 2/2 load is not uncommon, and a 2/1 load is usually the best case scenario. But given the choice between a mountain of debt and a heavier teaching load, I'd take the latter every time. 

The other thing I'd add to Ramus' excellent comments is that at the graduate level, you're applying to programs, not to schools as a whole. So, for instance, unfunded MAs at Columbia or Chicago sound appealing because the weight those names carry, but in just about every other respect they will do you far less justice than a two or three year funded MA at a school like Delaware or Alabama. With things like the MAPH, you get one year in a really intensive setting, where you are not ensconced in any specific department (hence the general "humanities" designation). Any work you do will be slowed down by the fact that, in contrast to the grad students in the English department, you will have to go out of your way to make connections -- connections that, unless you're able to be the rare bird who goes from unfunded MA to PhD at the same school (which is very, very rare), will not last long because you'll be gone in a year. Plus, considering the cohort sizes are pretty large -- Chicago's MAPH takes 100-120 per year -- you're less likely to stick out of the glut. 

Moreover, unless you're fortunate to have oodles of cash to afford taking on the unfunded MA without being slowed down by an out-of-university job, the jobs you'll have to take to pay your way through will make it less likely you'll have time to devote to your independent (i.e. non-coursework) scholarship. Whereas if you take a funded MA through a place like Delaware, you're getting paid to do field-specific work; that is to say, teaching experience. As far as I know, U Chicago/Columbia don't give TAships or RAships to unfunded MA students. So the opportunity cost is pretty large: in taking an unfunded MA at an admittedly prestigious school over a funded MA, you're sacrificing both money (debt) and job experience (teaching). 

This isn't to say the unfunded MAs don't produce excellent scholars, or people who successfully go on to PhDs -- there are many examples on this very forum of both of those things. But if you are certain academia is what you want to do, accruing as much experience as possible while minimizing debt is crucial, especially given how bleak tenure-track prospects are. Finding a school that is willing to support your scholarship and pay to give you teaching experience is an essential.

[erosanddust]

20 hours ago, lyonessrampant said:

Based on what you've written, I think you'll have much better luck going the funded MA route and then applying after. 

 

If you're interested in pursuing the MA route, you may want to take a look at Boston College. There's some very strong early modern faculty members working on the subjects you describe and they offer MA funding (some full-tuition, some half tuition + excellent assistantship/employment opportunities).

[Tango87]

I am an early modernist and pursuing M.A. lit at Boise State. Wonderful and supportive faculty in and outside of my field. Great upcoming courses in the early modern period for the next two years. I received good support in terms of preparing for PhD applications. Decent funding. Friendly department.