naming faculty members in the SOP

[mlle]

I'm just about ready to ship off my applications to masters programs in public health and I'm worried b/c in my SOPs I didn't name specific faculty members with whom I'd like to work or whose research I'm interested in, etc. I put in my essays that the specific school to which I'm applying appeals to me because the curriculum would allow me to pursue xyz topics, and because there are faculty in the dept that do research in blah blah focus areas, and/or because there are faculty that have academic backgrounds in a certain discipline (this is public health so faculty come from an assortment of academic backgrounds), but I didn't name any names.

How bad is it to NOT name specific faculty members in your SOP? When I picked the schools I'm applying to, I picked them based on the curriculum and the topics I could concentrate on. I wasn't necessarily looking at specific faculty members, so it seems like it would look too obvious for me to name-drop faculty in the SOP just to score brownie points. Someone told me it's only important to name faculty members in the SOP if you're applying for a PhD. Is this true? Is what I did (or didn't do) gonna hurt my application?

[frankdux]

i dont see the harm in name dropping. so why not go back and throw in a name or two in each essay?

at the very least it will look like you researched the school that much more. i'm applying to 10 schools and i named at least 2 professors in each SOP.

[rising_star]

I wouldn't worry too much about it since the MPH is a professional degree moreso than a research degree. Because of this, it's less important that you share key research interests with faculty.

[Ferrero]

I agree with Frank that if you can, you might want to go back and insert some names. Now -- lest you make another mistake -- in graduate school, most of your professors are on a first-name basis with you. So you want to use their first name. Do not address them by any title or you'll come across as a sycophant.

[rising_star]

Definitely don't refer to professors by their first names in your SOP. You don't know them so it's not yet appropriate.

[timuralp]

I'll just voice my agreement with rising_star on both counts

[mlle]

Thanks for the input. A mixed bag of opinions, I see (Ferrero aside) . . .

Hopefully this won't do too much damage.

[uberskooper]

Definitely name faculty whose work interests you. It can do way more good than harm. Use a formal title (Dr. So and So). While you will eventually be on a first name basis with these people, you are not yet. Don't listen to Ferrero, he threadshits on everything. I bet he's either a bitter grad student who thinks it's funny to mess with applicants or a hyper competitive prick who hopes his comments will "weed out the competition."

[solefolia]

If anyone actually thinks Ferraro gives out anything but amusing, obviously trolling advice, they probably aren't too much competition for anyone.

OT: Depends on the program (probably the most used phrase here). I've seen programs (often in the sciences) that stick you in a rotation the first semester, so naming a professor isn't really encouraged, since you'll get to know them and be able to choose one with greater confidence after you've gone through rotations. Other programs (most of the ones I've applied to are in this category) require you to list some faculty names, or at least areas of research that are represented by the department you're interested. Use your best judgment.

[lotf629]

Can I add a follow-up question? Just how much research are you guys doing on the faculty at your schools (especially those lower on your list) before you write your SOPs for those programs? Are you just looking them up on school websites and checking out their CVs, stated research interests, etc.? Or are you spending quality time reading recent publications?

My top choice is the school where I got my bachelor's, so I know the people I'd be working with pretty well: that's easy. Then, my second choice school has a faculty member whose work I know pretty well and is almost uncannily similar to what I'd like to be doing. W/r/t the other schools, it's an even split: some of the programs have scholars whose work I'm familiar with, others have people whose work I don't know well at all. In the latter cases, I've just done a little googling. But now I'm wondering whether to spend the rest of December a) researching the people I'd be working with in order to demonstrate some serious shared interests and write killer SOPs or working my tail off to try to finish an article in order to list it as "Research Under Review" on my CV. I'm leaning toward option . It's not like there's enough room in the SOP to write a full synopsis of Major Scholar X's recent work, after all...since I only have space to demonstrate broad familiarity with another person's work, I was hoping that I could get away with only *having* broad familiarity with other people's work. But maybe I'm shooting myself in the foot. Thoughts?

Finally, I realize that I need to do the research before I choose a program...I was just thinking that I could finish said research after the craziness of admissions season was past.

[Ferrero]

If anyone actually thinks Ferraro gives out anything but amusing, obviously trolling advice, they probably aren't too much competition for anyone.

OT: Depends on the program (probably the most used phrase here). I've seen programs (often in the sciences) that stick you in a rotation the first semester, so naming a professor isn't really encouraged, since you'll get to know them and be able to choose one with greater confidence after you've gone through rotations. Other programs (most of the ones I've applied to are in this category) require you to list some faculty names, or at least areas of research that are represented by the department you're interested. Use your best judgment.

More heckles from the peanut gallery. "Use your best judgement". Really helpful.

[Ferrero]

Can I add a follow-up question? Just how much research are you guys doing on the faculty at your schools (especially those lower on your list) before you write your SOPs for those programs? Are you just looking them up on school websites and checking out their CVs, stated research interests, etc.? Or are you spending quality time reading recent publications?

My top choice is the school where I got my bachelor's, so I know the people I'd be working with pretty well: that's easy. Then, my second choice school has a faculty member whose work I know pretty well and is almost uncannily similar to what I'd like to be doing. W/r/t the other schools, it's an even split: some of the programs have scholars whose work I'm familiar with, others have people whose work I don't know well at all. In the latter cases, I've just done a little googling. But now I'm wondering whether to spend the rest of December a) researching the people I'd be working with in order to demonstrate some serious shared interests and write killer SOPs or working my tail off to try to finish an article in order to list it as "Research Under Review" on my CV. I'm leaning toward option . It's not like there's enough room in the SOP to write a full synopsis of Major Scholar X's recent work, after all...since I only have space to demonstrate broad familiarity with another person's work, I was hoping that I could get away with only *having* broad familiarity with other people's work. But maybe I'm shooting myself in the foot. Thoughts?

Finally, I realize that I need to do the research before I choose a program...I was just thinking that I could finish said research after the craziness of admissions season was past.

Best approach might be to read their work fairly thoroughly, then needle them in the SOP on where they went wrong. That can be the point of departure for your own work -- easy segue.

[rising_star]

My top choice is the school where I got my bachelor's, so I know the people I'd be working with pretty well: that's easy. Then, my second choice school has a faculty member whose work I know pretty well and is almost uncannily similar to what I'd like to be doing. W/r/t the other schools, it's an even split: some of the programs have scholars whose work I'm familiar with, others have people whose work I don't know well at all. In the latter cases, I've just done a little googling. But now I'm wondering whether to spend the rest of December a) researching the people I'd be working with in order to demonstrate some serious shared interests and write killer SOPs or working my tail off to try to finish an article in order to list it as "Research Under Review" on my CV. I'm leaning toward option . It's not like there's enough room in the SOP to write a full synopsis of Major Scholar X's recent work, after all...since I only have space to demonstrate broad familiarity with another person's work, I was hoping that I could get away with only *having* broad familiarity with other people's work. But maybe I'm shooting myself in the foot. Thoughts?

Finally, I realize that I need to do the research before I choose a program...I was just thinking that I could finish said research after the craziness of admissions season was past.

What's the point of applying if you haven't done the research on the programs and their faculty first? I would say research people NOW. You might realize that you aren't a good match which could save you $50-100 on the application.

P.S. In general, it's considered a bad idea to get your BA and PhD at the same school, unless you get a MA in between elsewhere (and even then it's questionable).

[lotf629]

In general, it's considered a bad idea to get your BA and PhD at the same school, unless you get a MA in between elsewhere (and even then it's questionable).

A good point...I transferred as a junior, though, and I was deeply influenced by the program where I spent my fresh/soph years (I did graduate-level work there), so I don't feel like I'll end up being too narrow. I also have very concrete reasons for wanting to stick around.

Part of my problem is that I am applying in a very small subspecialty (Old English), so my options for advisors are pretty limited to begin with. There just aren't nearly as many Old English scholars at strong programs as there are, say, Victorianists, or 20th c. people. Moreover, a lot of Old English people are more or less strictly philologists, which I am not. Finally, I do have a Masters, and I know the dissertation I want to write, and it's not exactly like what anyone else is currently doing. So I have essentially tried to create a list of Anglo-Saxonists who are comfortable with a cross-disciplinary approach (by reputation) at schools where the specific approach I'm planning to take seems possible. That's not a huge list. It hasn't left me with a lot of room to eliminate programs on the basis that the faculty aren't currently working on exactly the same problems that interest me. The people I would most like to work with do, for sure, but unfortunately, they are mostly at extremely selective programs. So at the moment it seems necessary to cast a wide net.