English PhD programs get way more qualified applicants than they can accept, and from my experience and from what I've seen of others', what makes them pick one candidate over another is fit: how well they think your interests and approach will match up with that of professors in the program.
Obviously, then, it's best to apply to programs where you'll be a good fit without having to disguise your interests. There may be few of them, but it sounds, from what saunders and teaganc have noted, like they're out there--and hey, you can't go to more than one program at a time, anyway.
For programs that don't have faculty working in children's lit, I agree with endxgame. The question you want to ask yourself, I think, is whether a program can support the work you really want to do, not just the work you say you want to do. If you have many interests and could see yourself doing something--even if it's not children's lit--that makes you a good fit at a university, then it could be worth downplaying your interest in children's lit. But if children's lit is your real passion, don't assume that you'll be able to focus on it once you're in a program unless that program is amenable to it.
I'll also say from my experience that I looked at a "really good," highly respected program that only had two faculty members working in my not-too-esoteric field of interest. I turned it down because I just didn't see how I'd be able to pursue my interests there. Fit is, after all, bidirectional, and program is only good if it's good for you. Students who don't have support can find themselves without the resources to succeed even in programs where others flourish.
When doing your research, you might also ask how programs/potential advisors approach mentoring their grad students. Some programs have a more advisor-centric model while others follow the "it takes a village to raise a grad student" model. If you don't find a potential advisor whose interests relate directly to yours, you might fare better in a program where the advisor is less of a central figure in the professionalization process.
The question about whether it will "hurt [you] greatly to not have faculty researching in [your] field" is, as I assume you're aware, about more than admissions, and even though it may seem presumptuous to think now about what will happen once you're in a program, thinking beyond the "will I get in" question can help clarify things during the application process, too.
I hope this post makes sense--I'm too tired to tell. And best of luck to you!
[em]English PhD programs get way more qualified applicants than they can accept, and from my experience and from what I've seen of others', what makes them pick one candidate over another is fit: how well they think your interests and approach will match up with that of professors in the program.[/em]
I'm afraid it's even more mundane than that: often, they choose candidates because they have individual professors who need advisees, and they choose based on who can plausibly fill that role.
Obviously, then, it's best to apply to programs where you'll be a good fit without having to disguise your interests. There may be few of them, but it sounds, from what saunders and teaganc have noted, like they're out there--and hey, you can't go to more than one program at a time, anyway.
For programs that don't have faculty working in children's lit, I agree with endxgame. The question you want to ask yourself, I think, is whether a program can support the work you really want to do, not just the work you say you want to do. If you have many interests and could see yourself doing something--even if it's not children's lit--that makes you a good fit at a university, then it could be worth downplaying your interest in children's lit. But if children's lit is your real passion, don't assume that you'll be able to focus on it once you're in a program unless that program is amenable to it.
I'll also say from my experience that I looked at a "really good," highly respected program that only had two faculty members working in my not-too-esoteric field of interest. I turned it down because I just didn't see how I'd be able to pursue my interests there. Fit is, after all, bidirectional, and program is only good if it's good for you. Students who don't have support can find themselves without the resources to succeed even in programs where others flourish.
When doing your research, you might also ask how programs/potential advisors approach mentoring their grad students. Some programs have a more advisor-centric model while others follow the "it takes a village to raise a grad student" model. If you don't find a potential advisor whose interests relate directly to yours, you might fare better in a program where the advisor is less of a central figure in the professionalization process.
The question about whether it will "hurt [you] greatly to not have faculty researching in [your] field" is, as I assume you're aware, about more than admissions, and even though it may seem presumptuous to think now about what will happen once you're in a program, thinking beyond the "will I get in" question can help clarify things during the application process, too.
I hope this post makes sense--I'm too tired to tell. And best of luck to you!
Reply
I'm afraid it's even more mundane than that: often, they choose candidates because they have individual professors who need advisees, and they choose based on who can plausibly fill that role.
Reply
Leave a comment