ecritdansleau

I would say that (unless you're still at an earlier stage in your undergraduate career when you are still choosing courses to actually build professor relationships) you should stick to the professors who know you best: a recommender can only help you so much as they are willing to enthusiastically stand behind your scholarly aptitude. I have been told that letters of recommendation are less a testament to you being a decent student than a test of how much is a professor really going to bat for you; oftentimes, the nuances in LORs can volumes (ie the difference between "Sally has great ideas, and always earned an A in my courses" versus "From the first instance I heard her speak, Sally struck my as one of the most brilliant students I have had the privilege of working with in my twenty year career"). If someone has more than three obvious/natural choices for LOR writers, though, it may be something to consider (sometimes you can even get a sense of scholarly networking by reading the acknowledgements sections of professor's books). Of course, all this should be taken with the grain of salt that your own materials (SOP, Writing Sample) should speak for themselves. But with admissions as absurdly and unpredictably competitive as they are, I don't think it would be wise to disregard any single aspect of one's application.

This. I wasn't entirely aware of it at the time I was applying, but after I spoke to a recommender about my acceptances, it came up that the professor had a colleague here and there at some of the schools to which I was accepted (to sum up, there were professional relationships between a recommender and faculty at 3 of the four schools where I was accepted). I did not, however, contact any faculty members at any of the departments to which I applied.

Oh no! I hope I didn't scare you. The fact is, most everyone who takes it feels as if they have bombed it! I meant though, that if you were to sit for it and the worst scenario happened, you can always cancel the scores (if say, you only filled in say 1/3 or the answers or something). In all honesty--if it happens for you as it did for me--you will perform similarly on the real test as you have performed on practice tests. That was the only consistency I found in the tests (I took it twice and one felt SIGNIFICANTLY easier but in the end my score was only 20 points higher on that test that felt "easier"). So if you are comfortable with a score (presumably similar to your practice test score) going on to your score report, then you shouldn't fret. It's a bit of a quandary, because as Silent_G suggests, there may be adcoms who are real sticklers about the scores and multiple sittings. But it's difficult to speculate about where/what departments. But indeed-if you retake it, you'll be able to list your higher score on your applications. The other score (if you don't cancel it) will show up on your score report, along with the newer score. It's really just a matter of wanting to have a "blemish"-free record. In fact, I had the urge to cancel my scores the first time I took it, but I didn't, and my score was alright (similar to my practice tests).

Remember though, that everyone who takes the Lit GRE is a literature student, so your percentile isn't expected to be as high as your percentile for the GRE verbal score. As far as I know, a Lit GRE score over 650 (really even 600) seems to be good enough for top programs, but considering how competitive things are, you have to ask yourself if that is a risk you are willing to take. How important is this aspect of the application to you? How competitive do you want to be? If you're wondering whether one can improve their score over time, then my answer is an emphatic yes. I also struggled with the time limit of the test (leaving answers blank) on my initial practice test. I improved my first practice test score in the 40%ile to a consistent 85%ile on my final practice tests and the actual test. But it all depends upon whether you think those extra sacrifices are worth your trouble. Another grain of salt: if you weren't officially an English/Literature major, your subject test score may be more scrutinized by admissions committees, because the Lit GRE can function as a confirmation of topical knowledge/making up for a deficiency of courses in literature study. Admittedly, you don't really have time to prepare before this Saturday. If I were you, I would go into the test, and if I felt like I'd bombed it, mark the cancel score option when turning it in. Because it's too late for you to get a refund, you might as well make the most out of it. Canceling is the only way to get a feel for the actual test without it showing up on your record. And, if you feel like the test was easier than expected, you might end up keeping it (best case scenario)!! If you do cancel your scores/want to retake it abroad in October, this is what I recommend for preparation, in order of importance: 1. Princeton Review Cracking the Lit GRE 2. Vade Mecum (I didn't use this, but everyone who did seems to have gotten a higher score than me!) 3. Norton Anthology of English Literature: For the purposes of Lit GRE preparation, there's no need to read them from cover to cover, just read the introductions and author biographies in the areas/authors in which you have knowledge gaps. Admittedly, though, one of the counterintuitive aspects of the test for me was that my assumed weak areas were not actually my biggest weak areas according to practice test corrections. For instance, by scrutinizing practice tests, I discovered that I was consistently losing points on questions about Modern American poetry. So in the few days before the test, I went to the library and looked through the Norton Anthology of American Literature, and lo and behold, all the writers I was losing points on were authors prominently featured in the anthology. I wouldn't have expected that time period to be a "weak"/gap area for me, though, so it was definitely helpful to reassess directly where I was losing points with practice test corrections.

I really wouldn't recommend taking it this way (without studying), unless you have taken the PowerPrep and scored really high without a hitch. I have friends who nonchalantly took it after graduating as a "test sitting" and they regretted it afterward: they didn't realize that once you take it, those scores will show up on your score report for the next five years, so even if you retake it and improve, schools will still see your bomb/mediocre scores on the report. I recommend simulating your own practice test rather than spending 100+ on the test because if you're interested in improving your projected scores, two weeks is just not enough time to do it. I guess what I'm trying to say is, don't confuse "get the test out of the way" with "don't bother preparing." If the possibility of having less than tippy-top scores on your report doesn't bother you though, then I guess it's alright.

I would advise applicants to get the tests out of the way as soon as possible, ideally taking the general GRE no later than the summer before applications. Why? The tests can become huge timesinks/overwhelming burdens, and the application cycle deadlines and Lit GRE test dates can set you up to spend the most time on these tests precisely when you should be focusing on your WS/SOP drafts. If you are anything like I was last year, you're waiting for the willpower to start intensively preparing for the GREs, and you may feel like putting the test off until say, for instance, you've finished reading those novels you've been meaning to pick up or that course full of LIT GRE-ish poems. OR, in the case of the General GRE, I kept thinking "I'll take it around the same time I'm fulfilling my math requirement so quantitative problem-solving will be fresh in my head"--in retrospect, I was just thinking about it way too much when I didn't really even know what it was. You just have to mark the date, sit down, take REAL practice tests, and prioritize your weaknesses. Don't wait to get motivated; just register ASAP (although don't just randomly sign up to take it next week without feeling like you're satisfied with your preparation and practice test scores). In my case, there was nothing like putting down the money and having the date set (about three months in advance) to spark my motivation into making the preparation a regular/weekly/daily part of my lifestyle up till the test date. Also--the seats can fill up months in advance. For instance, where I live, the nearest October test date LIT GRE was full by July (luckily I live by a major metropolitan area, so I was able to go to a different test center, but in some locales there is only one test center for 150 miles). Also, not all test centers offer subject test GREs on each subject testing day, which makes it all the more confusing. If nothing else, make an account on ETS's website and click on "register" to get a sense of how the seats are filling up in your area (you can only view the seat availability if you click "register for a test" but you don't actually have to register to view the availability).

Yes!!! Is it absolutely lame for me to admit, I actually had a collage over my desk with, among other images, pictures of libraries at the schools I wanted to go to....When you have discouraging moments and tedious hoops to jump through, it's nice to look up and think "why am I doing this?" it can be reassuring.

Professors are authors...of literary criticism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_criticism

I was told that during this application cycle, Columbia admitted three applicants in my field, twentieth-century British. Last year they only admitted two for that field. Such numbers aren't exactly useful, except in understanding how and why there are so many excellent applicants who can't be offered admission. On the bright side, they admit somewhere between 20-30 in total for a cohort of 15 or so.

I'm not sure why someone dinged Galoup for this (if one has a difference of opinion, they may as well share their perspective). I can say that my professors would agree with the above statement by Galoup (For my undergraduate degree I went to a school similar to Iowa in the midwest..and yes, we talk about these things). Even if there's no objective truth to rankings in that way, I think it would be in one's best interest to be aware of varying "perceived" prestige when considering such a huge decision (And I would appreciate fellow gradcafer's honest opinions on that, despite how arbitrary such assignments of prestige may be). All that about prestige may very well be moot, however, depending on your interests and the faculty you'd work with. I would go where you feel you would be happiest. If you're happy, all the other things (doing well, balancing your time, bouncing back from minor setbacks) will be that much more manageable.

I basically paraphrased this, which has stuck in my head when I heard clips of it on the radio: "Your time is limited, so don’t waste it living someone else’s life. Don’t be trapped by dogma — which is living with the results of other people’s thinking. Don’t let the noise of others’ opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary." from Steve Jobs' Commencement speech at Stanford http://news.stanford.edu/news/2005/june15/jobs-061505.html

I guess it's in my nature to play both sides of an argument, but I feel as if I should admit one thing: when I visited my top choice school on the admit visit, I thought to myself that...it would have been worth it to have applied multiple cycles to go to what is basically my dream school. If--knowing what you know--you really feel that Rutgers is not right for you, it is not likely that your feelings will change. If you really do believe that Chicago might be a better launching pad for a PhD, I wouldn't completely write it off. You are making a huge commitment if you enter a PhD program as opposed to a MA program, and you shouldn't make that commitment if you feel uneasy about it. Further, the half tuition makes makes Chicago's offer somewhat more feasible. No one is going to tell you not to take Rutgers offer, but don't waste your time living someone else's life. And, if you end up trying to transfer out of Rutgers, this could burn a lot of bridges, a risk that you wouldn't run at Chicago. This is what I recommend: contact the professors at Chicago that you would like to develop a working relationship with if you were to attend Chicago. Will they be on campus next year? Do they seem willing to help you? Do they like your project? If the answers are positive ones, then...it may be riskier path, but the right one for you.

I'm headed to Columbia's English PhD program, and I could not be more excited. How awesome it is that there will be at least three gradcafe'ers in our cohort!!

It may not seem like it at face-value, but as far as I understand it, Rutgers' fully funded PhD program is a much more prestigious admit than Chicago's MAPH (if prestige is something with which you're concerned?), not only because funding essentially equals prestige in academia, but also because Rutgers is such a highly ranked English PhD program. It's kind of interesting this question has come up because when I was researching programs, I began to become convinced that Rutgers is basically an ivy without the official title. Along with other Ivies (HPY, etc) Rutgers is one of the nine colonial colleges (originally called "Queen's College"!), one of the oldest universities in the US, and was actually a private university until after WWII. If you look carefully at funding packages from different universities, you'll also notice that Rutgers funding package is practically equivalent to Ivies: you get a full fellowship the first year, and afterwards teach ONE COURSE a semester. One course a semester is a major luxury for a PhD student, at least according to the TAs at my undergrad university's PhD program; they typically taught 2/2 (which seemed to grate on them a bit). Other thoughts: Rutgers is about halfway between NYC. And Philadelphia. This is good. For academic--and cultural--reasons! And also, I too am a Lit/philosophy person and this was part of the reason I was very interested in Rutgers program. Basically, NYU/Princeton/Rutgers are the Harvard/Princeton/Yale of philosophy--so, similarly to what girlmostlikely mentioned about the northeast being a great center for Victorian studies, I perceive Rutgers/Princeton/NYU as the magic triangle of philosophy studies in the US.

I don't know if I would say that Chicago is terribly isolated from other nearby universities--being within an half hour of three R1 universities (including UChicago, Northwestern, UIC) is relatively close, although I cannot speak to the inter-campus cultural climate; the Triangle may be better in that regard of accessibility. But I feel as if more is negatively *said* about Chicago's "culture" than can actually be witnessed (the "where fun goes to die" rep); the undergraduates, at least, that I've known who went there in recent years were all brilliant, happy, and energetic individuals.