What does "fit" mean to you?

[Safferz]

Hi all,

I'll be applying next year for the 2012 admission cycle, but I've been reading the fora for quite some time and it's been interesting to see discussions of potential advisors. As an Africanist, it's more than likely I will end up in a department with an advisor who studies an entirely different region and/or time period, which is not so unusual in the field. I do know for certain that the one historian (at an institution with a Ph.D program, that is) who studies the country I plan to study happens to already be in his 70s, and will retire soon. I'm on my own!

Yet it seems that with Americanists in particular, there's an emphasis on finding a "match" with the professor who supervises your research. Is this also the case for those specializing in Latin America, the Caribbean, Europe, Middle East, Asia?

Any insight? What are your expectations of an advisor? How important is it to you to have that match?

[RDX]

Hi all,

I'll be applying next year for the 2012 admission cycle, but I've been reading the fora for quite some time and it's been interesting to see discussions of potential advisors. As an Africanist, it's more than likely I will end up in a department with an advisor who studies an entirely different region and/or time period, which is not so unusual in the field. I do know for certain that the one historian (at an institution with a Ph.D program, that is) who studies the country I plan to study happens to already be in his 70s, and will retire soon. I'm on my own!

Yet it seems that with Americanists in particular, there's an emphasis on finding a "match" with the professor who supervises your research. Is this also the case for those specializing in Latin America, the Caribbean, Europe, Middle East, Asia?

Any insight? What are your expectations of an advisor? How important is it to you to have that match?

IMHO

match is very much a urban legend. It'll be very hard to imagine a scholar (supposedly of a variety of interests) will admit a cohort of same people year after year. From what I heard from many professors is that they are willing and happy to stretch themselves.

What match realistically means is a general similarity in direction. And it's often much looser than that. Another point in the match is that by stating your and your professors' interests clearly (and correctly), you are showing you are well prepared, have some knowledge of the institution and have some reasons why you are going that particular institution (over other choices). In other words, it sounds like a dog-whistling (in a sociological/political sense).

But you don't need to be doing exactly the same thing / same time period as your professor is. But region may matter. After all, the discipline history is heavily regionally segmented.

[RDX]

Well after some afterthoughts I would say time matters too... But it varies on every and each professor. You may want to take a look at their CVs and see if it would matter.

[rsldonk]

It depends. At the Master's level, the professor who was the reason I went to the school I went to ended up going on sabbatical for my first year and then taking a private sector job and not returning. I ended up working with someone else in the department who, even though he didn't study the same region as I do, exactly, was actually a much better thing for me. I ended up approaching my thesis from a completely different angle that had I not worked with my new advisor, I would never have even thought of and my thesis was stronger as a result.

[RDX]

One more thing from a very close professor. She told me that if I am tooo matching with one specific scholar, she would become concerned and might not want me if she were on the committee: scholars are constantly moving around and the department would worry if the right person is gone. For this reason, the best case scenario, at least in this single case, is you have multiple but (much) looser matches within one department.

[StrangeLight]

as a latin americanist, for me personally, an exact match is unnecessary, but i had a few prerequisites.

1) similar general region. i study a place that straddles two "traditional" regions, central america and the caribbean. i wanted a PA that either studied central america or the caribbean. i figured, odds are i'll have to navigate one of the subfields myself, so it was important to have a PA with some familiarity in the literature of the other subfield.

2) thematic focus/types of questions. i work on cultural history, social history, and environmental history. i wanted a PA that did cultural or social or environmental history. any of the three would do. i was not looking to work with an economic historian or a straight political historian. in general i had a preference for people that worked on race, mostly because that was the sort of work i was exposed to as an undergraduate.

3) time. i wanted a modernist. gradually, i've come to appreciate the colonial latin american literature, but at the time i applied i wasn't interested.

that was it. even though i think those are some pretty vague and undemanding requirements, it severely limited my list of potential schools. in latin american history, there's a tendency to focus on three countries: mexico, brazil, and cuba. in theory, a mexicanist could advise on central america, a brazilianist on south america, and a cubanist on the caribbean. in practice, i encountered many caribbeanists and mexicanists that told me they wouldn't be able to advise a project on central america. a few tried to talk me into picking a different subregion. sometimes i did, changing my SOP, other times i just saved myself the application fee.

in my experience, here is when fit REALLY matters: when you apply. the guy who is renowned for studying cuba has every potential cubanist applying to work under him. he gets his pick of 1-3 students each year. he's going to pick the projects that interest him, and odds are they'll be on cuba. once you're actually in a program, if you change your mind or shift your interests, the faculty will work with you to advise you. they'll be flexible and accommodate you (with notable exceptions at certain top 10 schools). but you've got to get into the program first, and to do that, you've got to make your PA interested in your ideas.

also, there are definitely PAs at top schools who will advise on almost anything in latin america. usually they'll stick to colonial or modern history, but any geographic or thematic approach is open. but i've learned secondhand that in those sorts of advisor-advisee situations, the student really does all the work. the PA will read drafts and offer comments on structure or research design, but both the content and the theory are left up to the student to figure out. i guess that's fine, and i definitely applied to programs where that would've been the case for me, but ultimately i'm glad i didn't end up in that sort of situation. i want my advisor to mentor my intellectual development, not function as my editor.

looking back, i would've done many things differently in my applications, but i would probably end up in the same place. there were really only two programs that spoke to me. they each had a cubanist, a central americanist, and a brazilianist, all of whom are highly respected and award-winning, and all of whom i had read as an undergraduate and loved. i got into one of the two schools and, after two years, i couldn't be happier with the program.

Edited February 6, 2011 by StrangeLight

[ChibaCityBlues]

Just to add another dimension to this discussion about fit... I received my MA at a relatively small middle-ranking program with a great faculty. Though I learned a lot from them and benefited from their direction, I felt as though I learned the most through my discussions and interactions with the other graduate students. That said, as the program was small, most of the students were mostly middle-ranking (i have no idea how to put that in proper terms), and the program was weighted towards sub-fields other than mine, I always had a sense that those discussions and interactions were not all that they could be. Also, we didn't get a lot of visiting lecturers and there weren't that many extra-curricular avenues to really engage academically with other graduate students. So, when I applied to PhD programs, a large part of how I defined "fit" was in terms of the graduate student body. I wanted to be around a lot of graduate students and I wanted a lot of them to be in my sub-field. Also, I wanted to go to a program where the department and the university actively promoted opportunities for graduate students to discuss and interact through funded working groups, an active schedule of visiting lecturers, etc.. Those "fit" requirements meant that I ended up at a pretty big program. I got most of what I wanted and it's been great to be part of a really big, active, and vibrant intellectual community. The only thing that didn't pan out is that there aren't as many graduate students in my sub-field as I would have thought, which when you consider the faculty here in that sub-field is kind of ridiculous. Anyway, that's just another angle.

[rsldonk]

I also should add, I think I learned the most from classes outside my subfield than inside. I owe my thesis subject completely to taking a class not at all related to what I actually studied that forced me to look at things in a completely new way.

[gradstudenthistory]

One suggestion: if a professor teaches survey courses broadly covering the region/time you want to study, that's a good indication. Obviously Western Civ doesn't count. But, for example, being more familiar with the European fields myself, departments will often have one modern British historian, one early modern, one modern French historian, one early modern, etc. Generally, a professor studying modern France (and presumably teaching France since 1789) will be theoretically willing to supervise anyone studying France (and probably its empire, assuming a metropolitan focus) during that time period. That was generally the approach I had when I applied. Granted, I understand it gets broader with Africa. But how is the subfield usually defined? Can you find out what comps fields people usually do and how broad they are? I personally am not sure to what extent Africa is typically subdivided for the purpose of exams and teaching and it probably varies. But it might be helpful to get a sense if you can.

But you can and should inquire before you apply! People often wonder about what to write when they contact professors in advance of applying, but you have a ready-made question, so that's not a bad thing.

I would also say (much as RDX and StrangeLight pointed out) that ideally you will have some methodological similarity to your advisor. That's not to say that if you're a social historian you can't possibly study with a political historian, but if s/he's an old school political historian with no interest in anything other than high political history, that might be a problem. Keep in mind that your advisor will potentially have a very big say in what you read for your comps field with him/her.

[Safferz]

I personally am not sure to what extent Africa is typically subdivided for the purpose of exams and teaching and it probably varies.

It's not! Just an example for a typical scenario - we have two African history professors in my current history department; one studies colonial law and identity in Ghana, and had an advisor who studies missionary medicine in Tanzania, while the other professor studies women and gender in Uganda, and was supervised by someone who studies slavery in Senegal. The entire continent is one field.

Edited February 6, 2011 by Safferz

[kotov]

In my case, my interests are sort of two-fold, so anyone who works with either the Holocaust or the Romanian-speaking countries is a good fit for me in all likelihood. Even professors who work with the USSR have told me they could help me, as they're familiar enough with Moldova and Communist Romania to work with me on my area of interest. So it's kind of a fluid thing. "Fit" is way more than just the professor though, and is in some ways quite intangible, IMO. A lot of it has to do with how comfortable you'd feel in a place and how much you really want to be around the program's environment, the school, the town it's in, etc. I mean, you could find a professor with very similar interests to yours, but if he's in a program where you don't feel comfortable with the environment, you may not be as productive as you could be somewhere else.

[TMP]

For me, aside from the obvious, personality was important! This can only work if your professors know a lot of people and you show them the list of potential advisers. I showed my list to every PhD I knew and said, "Do you know any of these people personally?" They gave me their impressions and insights. They told me who to avoid in certain programs and work with X or Y as my primary adviser. I've actually had several professors saying that I should work with X, Y, or Z simply because of personality and working style fit. I have gone through my BA and MA advisers and each had their strengths and weaknesses so I have a fairly good idea of what I'm going to be looking for when choosing an adviser (if I get a choice!).

As for the department, I agree with ChibaCityBlues about looking at the department as a whole. What kind of direction is it taking? What are people talking about? (as evident through seminars and lectures on webpage). One of my schools surprisingly became one of my top choices simply because of what the department as a whole had to offer for stretching my brain. You will definitely want to have SOME graduate students who share thematic interests so you can piggyback one and another in discussions. If you're the only one interested in migration and everyone wants to study revolutions, well, you'll get lonely fast unless you work really hard at making that connection that there's a migration effect from revolutions.

Edited February 8, 2011 by ticklemepink

[natsteel]

I can give you an example of how I fit with a POI that accepted me:

Time: I focus on colonial and revolutionary America (mid-1600s-1800). He/she has largely focused on the early republic (1790-1840).

Theme: We both do political culture, but his/hers has to do with political leaders and mine has more do with non-elites.

Geography: We both focus on the middle colonies, but his/hers by default because he/she has worked on national politics (NYC, Philadelphia, Washington DC) and me more thematically.

So you can see, we have similar interests that aren't just a mirror image of each other. Instead, I think (or hope) we both see the other's work as being somehow complementary to our own. I don't think any but the most vain professors would want to always work with someone doing EXACTLY what they have already done. Fit, as I perceive it, is a broad concept. I would say time and region are the most fundamental. But theme is important too... if you want to study gender history, you wouldn't necessarily apply to work with someone who focuses mostly on race. Of course, I'm speaking generally.

[Bukharan]

I am also a 'regionalist' as I am doing Middle Eastern History (well...planning to... wait, no... hoping to). There are plenty of professors in Middle Eastern Studies out there. So it wasn't much of a problem finding someone who specializes in the same country (-ies), the same era and/or adopts theoretical approaches that are close to my heart.

What I consider a 'fit' department:

1. If the department has three or more professors who are teaching what I would like to study (not simply 'professors in my field').

2. I looked up publicly available CVs/ publication lists of pretty much most of those 'fit' professors. If someone's scholarship looked like something I would like my scholarship to have looked like if I were born 30+ years ago - there it is, a perfect 'fit'! (ok, this is the most badly constructed sentence ever...)

3. I also looked at the secondary fields (usually, completely different fields of history) I would like to take, and looked at those professors. I would look for similar interests there, and especially for a potential overlap with my primary academic interests in their scholarship.

[rsldonk]

For me, aside from the obvious, personality was important! This can only work if your professors know a lot of people and you show them the list of potential advisers. I showed my list to every PhD I knew and said, "Do you know any of these people personally?" They gave me their impressions and insights. They told me who to avoid in certain programs and work with X or Y as my primary adviser. I've actually had several professors saying that I should work with X, Y, or Z simply because of personality and working style fit. I have gone through my BA and MA advisers and each had their strengths and weaknesses so I have a fairly good idea of what I'm going to be looking for when choosing an adviser (if I get a choice!).

As for the department, I agree with ChibaCityBlues about looking at the department as a whole. What kind of direction is it taking? What are people talking about? (as evident through seminars and lectures on webpage). One of my schools surprisingly became one of my top choices simply because of what the department as a whole had to offer for stretching my brain. You will definitely want to have SOME graduate students who share thematic interests so you can piggyback one and another in discussions. If you're the only one interested in migration and everyone wants to study revolutions, well, you'll get lonely fast unless you work really hard at making that connection that there's a migration effect from revolutions.

Yes, got to second the professor's personality bit. At the MA level, one of the professors in the department was such a perfectionist that my buddy who had him as an advisor ended up wasting an entire semester writing and rewriting his thesis proposal (that ended up being 22 pages and an almost complete argument itself) that he's now going to finish late because of it. While they all tap dance on your work, this guy is NEVER satisfied. Ever. No work is ever good enough for him.

[barricades]

One thing I'm primarily concerned with is methodological approaches. Some of the PAs I've contacted at less prestigious schools are just as big in their fields as those in the Ivies. But some at the Ivies seem to be more "conservative" or "traditional" in their approaches to history. So I'll have to balance that all out when thinking about where to accept (of course, putting the carriage in front of the horses here. Who knows where and if I'll be accepted!).