Emeritus Involvement

[Scarlet A+]

This might sound like a stupid question, but how involved do emeritus professors tend to be? I've seen a few schools where the emeritus professors fit my interests perfectly, but I don't want to base a fit around retired professors with whom I might never see/take a class with/get to work with. 

[WildeThing]

I have never even seen any emeriti faculty around at my last campus. I would avoid appealing to emeriti.

[Kilos]

2 hours ago, WildeThing said:

I have never even seen any emeriti faculty around at my last campus. I would avoid appealing to emeriti.

Seconded.

Unless you've been in contact with them and they've agreed to work with you, it's highly unlikely that they'd be around enough to take on any kind of advisory role. I'd shy away from even mentioning them in passing, like "I really enjoy Professor XXXX's work" because you never know how that professor was viewed within the department, or whether the department is moving in a different direction, so on and so forth. Others may feel differently, but I've always heard that you should avoid name-dropping any faculty members, period, unless you've been in contact with them and they've at least implied that they might like to work with you. All of my successful applications avoided mentioning specific people.

[Indecisive Poet]

On 6/22/2018 at 9:34 AM, Kilos said:

I've always heard that you should avoid name-dropping any faculty members, period, unless you've been in contact with them and they've at least implied that they might like to work with you. All of my successful applications avoided mentioning specific people

@Kilos May I ask how you 'tailored' your SoPs to the program without mentioning faculty members by name? I just ask because the successful SoPs I've read did so and I'm not sure what the tailored section of the SoP would look like structurally without that. Is there another way to prove you've done your research and know what the faculty there are up to?

I've heard advice on both ends of the debate for this but I know I'd probably feel more comfortable not mentioning people by name. I've also been advised by some to do some digging on whether the specific programs I apply to prefer faculty to be mentioned or not but I'm not sure how I would do this other than by shooting emails to random grad students at said program.

[Scarlet A+]

8 hours ago, indecisivepoet said:

I've also been advised by some to do some digging on whether the specific programs I apply to prefer faculty to be mentioned or not but I'm not sure how I would do this other than by shooting emails to random grad students at said program.

I've been wondering the same thing. And who knows if the grad students even know? Just because it worked for them doesn't mean it's what the current committee prefers. SoPs are honestly what I'm most worried about because they're so crucial but so ambiguous. How do y'all find good SoP examples? 

[Kilos]

10 hours ago, indecisivepoet said:

@Kilos May I ask how you 'tailored' your SoPs to the program without mentioning faculty members by name? I just ask because the successful SoPs I've read did so and I'm not sure what the tailored section of the SoP would look like structurally without that. Is there another way to prove you've done your research and know what the faculty there are up to?

This is an excellent question, and it's one that I wish I had an answer to when I was writing my SoPs. Even now I wish I had a better grasp on what I did right and wrong. I'm unsure about which parts of my statement stood out in a positive light, and, to be candid, the fact that I didn't mention anybody by name may very well have been a negative. I have no way of knowing. The lack of initial direction and/or post-mortem feedback with personal statements/SoPs is one thing I despise about this whole process--it feels impossible to properly tailor an application without knowing exactly what they want to see.

That said, what I did was zero in on faculty whose published works, courses taught, and students advised seemed to (as perfectly as possible) align with/encompass/support the direction I saw my own scholarship headed. Then, when I wrote about my past work and future goals, without mentioning anybody by name, I made sure to spend time explaining why I thought the faculty, school, department, and courses offered would provide a uniquely stimulating academic environment. I did everything I could to elaborate on what I loved about the program, and how I felt that I could contribute to field through that conduit. I figured that taking this approach would do one of two things: Either I would miss my target, and they wouldn't see the fit the way I did--or they would see exactly what I was seeing, and they would understand which faculty members I was talking about and act accordingly. I assume that the latter is true, because I ended up getting accepted and being assigned the exact advisor I was hinting at/hoping for. Later, I got a rare bit of insight into the process when that advisor sent out an email introducing me to some of the other rhet/comp students where she cited several key passages from my SoP and quoted/referenced my writing sample. I guess that's as close as most people get to a confirmation that they were on the right track.

What worked in this specific application may have been a nail in the coffin for other applications (either this year or last). Who knows? As @Scarlet A+  noted, just because it worked for one person in one application cycle doesn't mean it will work for another person--even in the same school or cycle, or another school in another cycle. The whole thing can feel like a crap-shoot. I lean towards avoiding name-dropping because you never know who's going to be on that committee, and you also (probably) don't know how the person you're about to name-drop is viewed by the rest of the department, school, or their peers. The person you're investing your chances with might be viewed as a flake, or a diva, or somebody who isn't the greatest advisor--perhaps they've got a reputation for one thing or another, and the fact that you're angling your SoP towards them might leave a bad taste in somebody's mouth. If you don't mention that person specifically, it's more likely that they will still admit you based on merits and interests.

In the end, who knows. Everything I just typed could be complete and utter bollocks. 

 

Edit: Also, I think it's worth emphasizing that many people get accepted while mentioning faculty by name. Perhaps it's just something each individual should feel out when they're applying.

Edited June 24, 2018 by Kilos

[Indecisive Poet]

13 hours ago, Kilos said:

Then, when I wrote about my past work and future goals, without mentioning anybody by name, I made sure to spend time explaining why I thought the faculty, school, department, and courses offered would provide a uniquely stimulating academic environment. I did everything I could to elaborate on what I loved about the program, and how I felt that I could contribute to field through that conduit. I figured that taking this approach would do one of two things: Either I would miss my target, and they wouldn't see the fit the way I did--or they would see exactly what I was seeing, and they would understand which faculty members I was talking about and act accordingly.

 

13 hours ago, Kilos said:

The whole thing can feel like a crap-shoot. I lean towards avoiding name-dropping because you never know who's going to be on that committee, and you also (probably) don't know how the person you're about to name-drop is viewed by the rest of the department, school, or their peers. The person you're investing your chances with might be viewed as a flake, or a diva, or somebody who isn't the greatest advisor--perhaps they've got a reputation for one thing or another, and the fact that you're angling your SoP towards them might leave a bad taste in somebody's mouth. If you don't mention that person specifically, it's more likely that they will still admit you based on merits and interests.

These points are really helpful. I still have time to feel all of this out but I'm definitely leaning strongly toward not mentioning faculty by name. As you also point out, I wonder if it's maybe best left to what the individual applicant is comfortable with and what makes for the strongest statement. It does seem like ultimately there are successful SoPs from all avenues and the most important thing does end up being your merits and interests rather than how you structured the SoP. I've also been warned by another successful applicant a top program who didn't mention faculty that there are many more interdepartmental spats than I realise and the faculty members I mention may be the cause of those. I suppose it's also worth considering that the faculty members I'm interested in may not be accepting graduate students to advise, may be going on sabbatical, etc. To me it just feels safer not to mention names. In my M.A. statements, which were a much less rigorous process, I mentioned something like "faculty expertise in x" being appealing without going into greater detail. I wonder if that would work for PhD statements?

Do you have any tips for what kinds of things to mention about the school and department (and even what kinds of things I should be looking at when narrowing down)? I haven't gotten too deep into looking at programs yet other than narrowing down by faculty interests, but aside from things like some programs having very distinct flairs for particular subfields (ie Oregon and ecocriticism or some of the UC schools and critical theory), it seems to me like many of the programs and departments themselves are very much the same and very much traditional apart from what individual faculty members are studying. I know this isn't really the case -- I imagine once you begin a program it becomes clear what the 'feel' or ethos of that program is, but it's not really something I'm finding palpable from websites and handbooks. Also, for courses offered: since they change every year, did you just allude in your SoPs to courses in the past maybe being reflective of what might be offered for you?

Edited June 24, 2018 by indecisivepoet

[Kilos]

22 hours ago, indecisivepoet said:

In my M.A. statements, which were a much less rigorous process, I mentioned something like "faculty expertise in x" being appealing without going into greater detail. I wonder if that would work for PhD statements?

I think that's a solid approach. As you well know, the whole point is to (succinctly) say "Hey, I'm convinced that this program/school/department is really good at XXX; furthermore, I'm convinced that some of the faculty in this program/school/department are particularly good at/interested in XXX niche/subfield/area of interest and I would love to work with them; additionally, I'm really good at/interested in/engaged in XXX--here's how I can prove that I know what I'm talking about." None of this requires any name-dropping. Then again, as I said above, if you've already talked to a POI/contact within the department and they've implied that they're interested in working with you, I don't think you can go wrong finding a way to fold them in.

As far as tips on things to mention, I always hesitate to say too much because I'm no expert, and one of my biggest fears is to give anybody bad advice. That said, I'm happy to give examples as long as you promise to take everything I say as the anecdotal ramblings of somebody who is just as confused about the process as anybody.

Disclaimer out of the way: What I did was a buttload of research. I know you're asking for specific examples, and I'll get to that, but I think I have to emphasize that you won't know what to mention unless you've really done your homework. I started at a very high level, eliminating places I knew I wouldn't want to live (very important), then eliminating schools that didn't guarantee full funding, then eliminating schools that didn't have opportunities for summer funding, fellowships, and conference funding. I'll admit that as much as I hate generic "rankings" of schools and departments, they probably played a role in my filtering (especially the National Research Council rankings, and placement rankings). Then I started getting way more picky. I eliminated schools that didn't have at least a few active faculty members whose bodies of work aligned with my intended research path (this took a lot of time and a lot of digging through CVs, and then a lot of digging through published works listed on said CVs--I feel like I did more reading for this than I did for my thesis or my last seminar paper). Then, once I had a list of about 25 schools that I felt fit me, I went and asked some people I trusted; I asked mentors, advisors, people who knew my interests and could recommend landing places that would fit well (I didn't share my list until after they'd given me their unbiased recommendations, and then I asked if they liked any on my list, or had any reason to remove any others). Then we discussed where our lists crossed paths, and I added a few that I'd missed.

At that point I was down to about ten schools, and I started scouring the internet, the library, and even message boards like this one. I reached out to a few people at different schools (some reached back, some didn't), and I tried to make contact with current and former graduate students in the programs I liked. I tried to keep it short and sweet, and I got more than a few wonderfully detailed responses. I asked these people what they valued about the program, what they were looking when they entered, how that was working out, and what they'd discovered (both pleasant and not so) once they'd arrived. I compared these responses with what I'd uncovered through my own research and tried to build a picture of the program as best I could without ever setting foot there (which was as hard as it sounds, and could be completely off-base even now). Then, under the gun of looming deadlines, I eliminated a few more for random reasons (some just didn't feel like they were me, some didn't feel like they were in a location that my wife would feel comfortable, and others I just didn't get a good vibe about). Eventually, I was down to a handful of schools. One was local (convenience), one was the best program in the country (or at least it was in my mind, though the fit wasn't perfect), and the other one felt like it was made for me (this one rose to the top of my list while I was researching, and the rhet/comp faculty seemed open-minded, eager to expand the scope of their program, fully engaged, and the graduate students seemed happy, not overworked, and excited--they also talked about how they felt fully supported). Here's where I'll get into specifics, because I noticed how my SoPs diverged from this point.

The local school was pretty much guaranteed. It was my alma mater, I knew the faculty, and I guess it's what some might call a "safety" school. I'm ashamed to admit that I didn't spend a lot of time on this SoP (basically a pared down version of my other ones) with almost no tailoring to fit, but I still got accepted with full funding and a T.A. position. I mentioned that I was familiar with the faculty and the program. I guess this could, possibly, be interpreted as evidence that perhaps proving fit isn't as important as establishing qualification or merit.

The other two were more difficult. As I wrote the SoP to the really prestigious school, I found myself contorting my own thoughts (as well as interpretations of my past work) to try and make myself sound more appealing--it felt like I was changing who I was and what I was interested in in order to fit in better. Maybe they could tell. Maybe the fake veneer is what sunk my chances. I really wanted to attend this school, but the further I got into the SoP the more I felt that I didn't really belong. They had a few faculty members that would have been a dream to work with and whose work aligned with mine (which is why the program made it so far up on my list), but it didn't really feel like they had a huge rhet/comp contingent, and despite their great resources I was afraid I'd feel like an outsider in a top-shelf literature program.

As I wrote the SoP for my top choice school, the exact opposite happened. I felt that I could just gush about who I was, what I was passionate about, how all of my past work aligned perfectly, how I knew I fit right in, and it all just made sense. I talked about these things in particular: this school is a strong research university with well-established and burgeoning schools/departments across dozens of disciplines (numerous sciences, linguistics, psychology, etc.), and the English department is known for having wonderful, productive relationships with many of them; the rhet/comp side of this department is run by a group of really gung-ho faculty who have a wealth of experience with the rhetoric of science, the interdisciplinary facets of composition, writing across disciplines, and (to a lesser extent) ecocriticism, which is the exact kind of environment I was looking for; these same rhet/comp faculty run a stellar FYW (first-year-writing) program with a 24 student cap on each section, and a 1-1 course load for the TAs (which really gives the TAs a chance to work one-on-one with students rather than lecture and pray); they also have a spread of courses that the TAs can begin teaching as they develop professionally, including literature and rhetoric courses, some of which the TAs have a great deal of control over. I've rambled too much already, and I could add some more detail, but I feel like I probably shouldn't re-write my whole SoP here. Essentially, I did what I could to briefly index what I loved about the program, why I loved it, why I knew this would be a unique, stimulating, resource-rich environment for me as an individual--and, most importantly, I made sure to turn all of this back around and relate it to my past work and future goals. All said, this probably amounted to 1/4th of my SoP. Another 1/4 was sign-on and sign-off, and the 1/2 remaining was diving into my proposed research topics and intended trajectory.

What I'm getting at, while trying to answer your questions, is that you when you stumble across these things while researching potential schools, they will jump out at you. You'll think "holy crap, that's great, that's just what I'm looking for." When you have those moments, jot them down and try to remember why you felt so energized about it at that very moment. Put that energy and excitement into your SoP, and remember to do it without sounding like a crazed idiot. There's an important line between positive, focused energy and unhinged, aimless vomitus (trust me, I know, I'm a rambler, as is evidenced here). 

Also, you asked about classes: Often times you can go on a department's website and they'll have the courses/seminars posted for the next year. All of the schools I applied to had this--one of them I was able to request. They usually say "subject to change," but this, paired with a list of past offerings, can give you a really good idea of what to expect from a department. Often times there will be great 1-2 paragraph descriptions of the seminar. Just feel it out!

Finally, I think you're right when you say that you can't really get a good feel for the ethos of a program until you're actually in it. This sucks. It makes applying really hard. Then again, you don't know what that entree is going to taste like until you order it and eat it--you just have to do your best to figure out what it might be like by browsing some online reviews, looking at a recipe, reading the menu, looking around at the other diners' plates, asking the wait staff, and glancing into the kitchen. Research will get you as close to the finish line as anything else.

[bpilgrim89]

I wouldn't mention emeritus faculty members. While it is conceivable that they could want to work with a promising graduate student, it is more likely they will not be open to taking on a new student.

Re: mentioning faculty members at all in your SOPs, I have heard both sides of this debate, and I think both have compelling arguments. That being said, I mentioned faculty members in each of my SOPs and my application cycle turned out great. It's risky to mention faculty members, but if you truly know their work, i.e. you've read it and have read reviews of it, then go ahead. I think the danger is to simply list potential professors because they are in the same large field as you, like gender studies or 19th-century American literature. Instead, you need to tailor such statements to demonstrate how faculty's research speaks to your own intervention. Answering a question like "How/why is their perspective on gender in 19th-century America unique and necessary to your own work?" would be a compelling faculty mention, not just a superficial name-drop.

Edited July 7, 2018 by bpilgrim89

[Warelin]

44 minutes ago, bpilgrim89 said:

I wouldn't mention emeritus faculty members. While it is conceivable that they could want to work with a promising graduate student, it is more likely they will not be open to taking on a new student.

Re: mentioning faculty members at all in your SOPs, I have heard both sides of this debate, and I think both have compelling arguments. That being said, I mentioned faculty members in each of my SOPs and my application cycle turned out great. It's risky to mention faculty members, but if you truly know their work, i.e. you've read it and have read reviews of it, then go ahead. I think the danger is to simply list potential professors because they are in the same large field as you, like gender studies or 19th-century American literature. Instead, you need to tailor such statements to demonstrate how faculty's research speaks to your own intervention. Answering a question like "How/why is their perspective on gender in 19th-century America unique and necessary to your own work?" would be a compelling faculty mention, not just a superficial name-drop.

To add onto this: I also mentioned faculty members in my SOPs, and got into my number one choice. I think it's also important to make sure that person is still doing research on that topic. They might have published an article on James Joyce but their current research interests may no longer involve James Joyce. Being able to engage with their current research interests shows them how you'd be able to contribute to the field and also shows that you're active in learning about the field.

[psstein]

On 6/21/2018 at 4:22 PM, Scarlet A+ said:

This might sound like a stupid question, but how involved do emeritus professors tend to be? I've seen a few schools where the emeritus professors fit my interests perfectly, but I don't want to base a fit around retired professors with whom I might never see/take a class with/get to work with. 

It varies among professor, department, etc. My department is very small and I've met with two emeriti more than once to discuss future research projects. One of them is actually my current advisor's PhD supervisor (or Doktorvater, to use the precise German term). They've been great resources for discussing ideas, recommending books, and thinking about a dissertation. They have not been great resources in terms of discussing the job market, the changing contours of my own field, etc.

Emeriti can be great colleagues and friends, so much as that's possible as a grad student. They're not equipped to help a grad student entering today's market or facing the challenges of today vs. 25 years ago. I'm happy to have their guidance, but I wouldn't want either one as my advisor.

You also need to keep reality in mind: these people aren't going to live forever. Your advisor's recommendations will play large roles in any career path. A 50 year old advisor is going to be able to help you a lot longer than a 75 year old advisor.

Keep in mind, I say all of this from a position close to your own. The person who best fits my interests in my current program is a 76 year old emeritus professor. If he were 10 years younger, I'd beg him to supervise me.

[Indecisive Poet]

Hey @Kilos, I never thanked you for your response because life got ahead of me but I have been ruminating on it ever since I read it and I actually re-vamped my research/spreadsheet-ing approach to be a little more similar to what you did. Thank you so much for writing all of this out! You and everyone in this community will be the reason I get into a PhD program, if that happens...

A weird thought -- I think that sometimes seeing how much thought everyone here put into ensuring a program was the right fit for them and would provide them with more than enough support has almost... intimidated me? And I find myself wanting to write off certain things like, for example, eliminating programs that don't guarantee summer funding or even something like making sure current graduate students are happy there, because I don't feel like I'm allowed to be that picky. Like I'm kind of telling myself I'll be lucky to get in and I should take what I can get. But I know on some level that something I need to work on over this year of research is convincing myself that I'm a candidate that departments should want at their program, and it should be equally if not moreso about convincing departments of this and ensuring I'm at the right program rather than begging to get in wherever they'll take me.

I also wonder, though, if it might not be possible for me to find "perfect" programs because I'm very picky with location and because my fields/interests aren't super prevalent areas. It's already looking like I won't be able to put together a list of 10-20 programs that are in places where I'd want to live, guarantee funding, guarantee other kinds of support, and have 3 or so faculty members in my general areas. I suppose location is the first thing that should go but I find myself thinking things like "I don't need to eliminate programs that don't guarantee funding/conference funding etc because I might still be offered funding." But what if I only get into those programs and I'm not offered funding? Realistically I'd just take the loss and apply again the next year and I really want to avoid having to do that. So I'm not sure whether those are worth the application or not.

[Warelin]

51 minutes ago, indecisivepoet said:

And I find myself wanting to write off certain things like, for example, eliminating programs that don't guarantee summer funding or even something like making sure current graduate students are happy there, because I don't feel like I'm allowed to be that picky.

Word of caution here: Most programs don't guarantee summer funding. You'd be heavily restricting a lot of great choices if you do this. Of the 4 offers I received, only one had guaranteed (unofficial) summer funding.  I do, however, think it's important to research stipends and see how if it can sustain you. Sustaining means different things depending on if you're okay with roommates, have pets, etc. Look into rent prices carefully. Do the same with food prices + utility costs. Think about how close you want to be to campus or if driving to campus is okay to you. Consider the additional parking passes and gas prices.

 

56 minutes ago, indecisivepoet said:

It's already looking like I won't be able to put together a list of 10-20 programs that are in places where I'd want to live, guarantee funding, guarantee other kinds of support

If a program doesn't guarantee funding, it isn't a program I'd apply to. Places that don't offer funding usually have no teaching or research experiences required. Without those experiences, the job market is going to be nearly impossible to succeed in.

 

59 minutes ago, indecisivepoet said:

I suppose location is the first thing that should go

I disagree here. Location is important. If you're unhappy with the location, you're going to be heavily unmotivated to produce your best work. I would think of location as more generalized though: Would you feel happy working somewhere secluded? Or do you need to the city? Would you be okay with living in a college-town where it'll most likely be a ghost town during the summer? 

[a_sort_of_fractious_angel]

4 hours ago, Warelin said:

Location is important. If you're unhappy with the location, you're going to be heavily unmotivated to produce your best work. I would think of location as more generalized though: Would you feel happy working somewhere secluded? Or do you need to the city? Would you be okay with living in a college-town where it'll most likely be a ghost town during the summer? 

I completely agree with @Warelin on this point - I loved my MA program but it wasn't in the greatest location (for me ) as it had a very rural/college-town feel which was kind of a bummer always and a real bummer in the summer. That "vibe" influenced me and my work, and it taught me that location mattered for my PhD apps. Granted, I have some friends who could care less about where they are physically, but I (now) identify as sensitive to geography and if you think you might as well - that's totally cool and doesn't have to be a problem when you apply to PhDs. 

One additional thought I'd like to add, for you and future applicants reading this thread: it's OK to want to be near family or friends or things familiar.

When I applied to PhDs, I put down some "rules" - for example, I'm from the Northeast, so I didn't look at West Coast schools or schools in the deep South. I knew, no matter how amazing the program would be, I'd be too far from friends/family/familiar things (like seasons!) to feel settled.

I also emphasized city or city-adjacent schools because I really wanted a certain level of energy that just doesn't seem to exist in the smaller/rural/college-town type places. And, the cool thing about city schools is that they sometimes pair up with other schools/programs, formally and otherwise - I found that to be really attractive. 

Of course, I wasn't super strict about these "rules" - I applied to a couple of programs way outside of the Northeast and to a few smaller programs in college towns, but I also made sure that these programs would be worth my going there.

So, seriously considering location worked out for me, which means it can absolutely work out for you, @indecisivepoet. Please don't feel you have to dump location first - I'd first dump weak/non-existent funding and noticeably poor placement rates. I'd also (if you can) visit and drop anywhere that has culture that doesn't work for you (like geography, dept culture can kill or create your future academic self). 

 

 

[Indecisive Poet]

@a_sort_of_fractious_angel Re: location -- much of the reason I feel limited is that I do not enjoy living in the city, so big city locations are all immediately out of the question for me. In this sense I have opposite preferences to yours. But I also struggle with the idea of living in any city at all and much prefer the thought of a rural location or college town. I'd also like to be near good hiking/nature of some kind and ideally in the northern half of the country. There are some locations, like the Eastern Pennsylvania/NJ/NYC/Delaware/Maryland/DC area that I'm just not willing to live in (I grew up there and did my undergrad there and for various reasons my mental health could not take living there again). This is what I mean by VERY picky, so I'm finding already that I'll need to compromise -- including some cities, some locations in the South. In a perfect world, I'd only apply to programs on the West Coast, near the Rockies, or in the New England region. That ain't happening because the programs just aren't there, and these also seem like the most expensive places to live. So perhaps, as you suggest, it's about having rules and sticking to them to the greatest extent possible, but also being flexible, especially if programs in unideal locations are the ones that seem like the best fit.

@Warelin I guess I threw out "summer funding" as an example of the general type of thing I've completely bypassed, but it's good to know that it's generally not guaranteed. With regard to guaranteed funding, I believe @Scarlet A+ posted a topic about this recently but eliminating programs that don't explicitly guarantee it seems like a tough first step to take for narrowing down programs because there are very, very few websites and handbooks that lay out that information. Most say nebulous things like "we attempt to offer all of our applicants funding" or, what I think is most common, "we have various TAships and fellowships available". I think I'm looking for an easy answer where there isn't one, but how am I supposed to puzzle this out without spending several hours each researching 60-80 initial-list programs' funding situations?

By "guarantee funding," BTW, I mean guarantee full funding for 5-7 years of the program. So many programs seem to provide some form of funding and I guess I'm having trouble chucking out programs that otherwise really excite me but don't do the former. But as you suggest, perhaps their lack of guaranteed full funding indicates deficiencies that should knock them off my list anyway.

Edited July 13, 2018 by indecisivepoet