Why do humanities programs interview?

[jusrain]

I don’t have any interviews planned at the moment, nor am I sure if I’ll have one at all this cycle, but this whole process has got me thinking: what is the function of an interview in the humanities admissions process? 

I know the interview is a vital part of business school admissions, which makes sense because people skills are vital to business as a field, generally speaking. It also makes some sense to hold interviews in the sciences because the advisor/advisee relationship seems more important to science doctorates, i.e. you work on specific projects/labs with specific profs and they should probably make sure everyone gets along before they admit you. But what about for literature? 

What can an interview tell an English or humanities adcom that they cannot gather from written materials? Is it about confirming that the applicant’s submitted work is indeed their own, or validating that their project plan is cohesive, or gauging whether or not one can put together complex ideas without a proof reader? Is it to determine who would make a clear, accessible future teacher? Or does it test one’s depth and breadth of theoretical knowledge, like an MLA interview? All of the above? 

I guess I’m more curious whether interviews make this process even more subjective than it already is, or if they have the potential to bring new, valuable, information to the table (and what that entails). How much should ‘likability’ matter in a humanities interview? I’m interested in any and all thoughts on this component of the admissions process. And especially opinions. 

Edited January 23, 2019 by swarthmawr

[j.alicea]

I can’t speak with authority, and I’ve never been interviewed myself, but here is what I’ve heard from a prof/friend who has served for an adcom in a humanities department that does interviews.

- It allows the dept. to gauge secondary language skills, if that is important to the program.

- It gives the applicant an opportunity to ask questions and make a decision for themselves regarding whether it really is a “good fit.” When we apply, sometimes a place seems like a good fit simply because you want to go somewhere.

- It is also to test the waters and see if they like you on a personal level... this was a little disconcerting to hear, but it’s not necessary that everyone in the department get along. Hopefully you and some of your POIs do hit it off, otherwise the next 5-6 years could be rather unpleasant.

Edited January 23, 2019 by j.alicea

[Musmatatus]

1 minute ago, j.alicea said:

- It gives the applicant an opportunity to ask questions and make a decision for themselves regarding whether it really is a “good fit.” When we apply, sometimes a place seems like a good fit simply because you want to go somewhere.

 

Sometimes I browse other humanities forums, and I think someone in history mentioned that a friend of theirs got a phone interview and found out that a lot of the people they were interested in working with were either retiring or leaving the institution! They can definitely be good for you, too. 

 

 

[j.alicea]

Indeed! Nothing would be worse than getting into a PhD, and then suddenly no one wants to chair the committee for your disertación!

[havemybloodchild]

13 minutes ago, j.alicea said:

- It is also to test the waters and see if they like you on a personal level... this was a little disconcerting to hear, but it’s not necessary that everyone in the department get along. Hopefully you and some of your POIs do hit it off, otherwise the next 5-6 years could be rather unpleasant.

One of my professors said she was careful to include things about personality/work style/response to criticism/classroom engagement etc. in her letter of rec for students because departments want to pick candidates with whom they think they will like working.  Personally I'm surprised more programs don't interview

[dreid]

Ooh, I can actually offer some insight here! I've had three graduate school interviews this cycle, two formal and one informal. They've all been at European universities, so I imagine the US system does things a bit differently, but there could be some crossover. I think the most common question I have been asked has been some iteration of "what motivated you to want to study xx?", and "why is your research important to the field?". Like others have mentioned above, I think a lot of the reason for interviewing candidates comes from POIs wanting to get to know who you are as a person - if you're going to be working closely with someone for five years, you want to make sure they're not an absolute nightmare to be around. However, in Europe at least (and in my personal experience), they seem to really want to know the worth of your research. After all, if you're going to be doing some really interesting, original, good-quality research, you've got a much better chance of getting publications/additional funding/prizes/general academic recognition - which, in turn, looks good for the school. On the other hand, if you are just going to be re-hashing work that has been done by scholars time and time again without adding anything new, it's not going to attract as much attention. From that perspective, I'd say make sure you can really situate where your research stands in relation to current developments in the field. It's a horrible metaphor to use, but it becomes almost like a sales pitch: you should invest in me because my research will offer some sort of a return, both to the field and to the institution.

I've also been asked quite a few technical questions about critical theory, methodology and how I would structure my thesis - but I got the feeling they were more interested in my thought process and communication skills than my actual responses to those. In fact, in one of the interviews I answered all the technical questions absolutely atrociously but had a really great connection with the POIs, and they made me an offer the next day (unconfirmed funding situation though, so I can't get excited quite yet!). So yeah, I'd say from my experience it's something of a split; they definitely want to know who you are and whether they can envisage a good working relationship with you, but they also want to know what your research will do to advance scholarship in that particular field - and how you will make that happen.

Anyway, I hope this helps! Now, fingers crossed for an interview from one of my US applications... 

Edited January 23, 2019 by dreid

[placeinspace]

10 minutes ago, dreid said:

 However, in Europe at least (and in my personal experience), they seem to really want to know the worth of your research. After all, if you're going to be doing some really interesting, original, good-quality research, you've got a much better chance of getting publications/additional funding/prizes/general academic recognition - which, in turn, looks good for the school. On the other hand, if you are just going to be re-hashing work that has been done by scholars time and time again without adding anything new, it's not going to attract as much attention. From that perspective, I'd say make sure you can really situate where your research stands in relation to current developments in the field. It's a horrible metaphor to use, but it becomes almost like a sales pitch: you should invest in me because my research will offer some sort of a return, both to the field and to the institution.

This echoes what I've been told by advisors, etc., even in the U.S. system. The SOP is, in some ways, a sales pitch- why is this research important, what void is it filling, and why are you the most qualified person to perform it? I'm glad to see someone confirming this perspective!