What, exactly, is a good fit?

[Themistocles]

Hey all,

I've been wondering about what, exactly, a good fit is. I've read everywhere that a good fit is one of the most important aspects of being accepted into a program. Try as I might, I can't find a definition of this. Does this mean your research interests (in my case, life sciences) line up exactly with your background and the advisor you want to work with? Does it mean you fit with the 'culture' of the program? It seems so vague, and searching these forums doesn't help much.

In my case, I'm asking because my background in research as an undergrad is very extensive at a small institution without many faculty options. I'm wondering if my research background is really going to determine what sort of programs I can get into, because otherwise I'd be considered a 'bad fit'. I'm talking about staying within the same field (ecology) and subfield, but simply having interests in different aspects, model systems, or approaches. If anyone with some experience can help out, I'd really appreciate it.

Thanks for your time.

[qbtacoma]

Science folks will have more specific answers, but in general "fit" means exactly what you have laid out: research interests and program culture. It can also refer to methodological style. You don't necessarily need to be in lockstep with a given professor to fit within their interests, but you do need to be able to show that your past work and future interests are relevant to what they are doing. So, for example, you could have experience with a certain methodology that can be applied to Professor X's research even though your background is in another field.

As far as culture, that's a more finely tuned fit question which encompasses work styles. Does your professor leave the grad students alone and have meetings only once a month, or is s/he in and out of the lab all day? That sort of thing. Some programs are more collaborative between grad students and some are competitive. If you know that your learning style requires certain things from your mentor, then you should take this into account. Honestly, though, that kind of fit question mostly comes into play after you have several acceptances.

[wtncffts]

More the first, though I suppose the second could sometimes be an issue, if your application gives the adcomm some reason to be worried about it. But the concept of 'fit' is generally the extent to which your experience and research interests would be supported in some particular program. So, a good fit would be one in which your research has every chance of succeeding, which means the right faculty, resources, perhaps even location, etc. A bad fit is, of course, the opposite.

It only stands to reason that programs will seek to admit grad students which they feel they can best support, and I think it's also in the student's best interests. This will restrict your options somewhat if you really want to maximize your chances of acceptances (i.e., applying to only schools which you feel are the best fit, rather than casting the net more broadly). Unless your interests are extremely esoteric, though, I don't think this will pose too much of a problem; most of the better universities will have departments with large enough faculty that your lack of 'exact fit' probably wouldn't disqualify you from possible acceptance.

[Strangefox]

Remember that fit does not mean that you must find a professor who does research on exactly the same thing as you do. Anyway, you would not want to do exactly what somebody else is doing. So most probably you will find a prof who works in the same subfield.

For example you want to study how lyrics of modern pop songs influence people's perceptions of romantic relationship. It may be enough to find somebody who researches effects that modern media have on our perceptions of the world. Or somebody who studies popular music from an entirely different angle. Don't hesitate to contact professors if you believe that they might be interested in your research. The fact that they work on a somewhat different topic (within the same subfield) doesn't mean that they won't find your research fascinating and be able to help you with it.

[runonsentence]

In agreement with the posts above.

Think of it this way: let's say an admissions committee reads over your application packet and finds it impressive. Then say they put it in a pile with 4 or 5 other similarly impressive applications. Now say they can only accept 1 or 2 of the applications in that pile. What they'll do next is ask themselves why each applicant needs to do her/his research at their program. Why here, and not somewhere else?

To my mind, admissions committees want to know the answer to two questions: The first is, do we have the faculty resources and research background to support the interests that this applicant is expressing with her/his application packet? The second, which comes straight from my program's DGS, is, can I stand knowing/working with this person for the next 4-6 years?

[natsteel]

Aside from the usual way we think of "fit" as meaning our interests in relation to those of prospective advisors and other faculty, there are other less obvious aspects.

For example, if you are in 18th-century British history and the school has affiliations with similar institutions, such as a "Center for British Studies" or "Early Modern Seminar." Also, if you are an 18th-century Americanist and there is a major organization or library nearby which is relevant to your field, that could be emphasized when talking about fit in your SOP. For historians (and others), does the university's library have significant holdings or archives in your field or sub-field?

While not being the primary aspect of "fit," these are just other smaller aspects which can enhance the adcomms' perception of your fit with the program and university.

[newms]

It seems so vague, and searching these forums doesn't help much

It probably seems vague because 'fit' can be very personal for an applicant.

It encompasses things like research interests (as Strangefox says, they don't have to be identical, but should be similar), the advising style of the prof (some profs are very hands-on and involved, others give students a lot of leeway), how reputable the school (or department) is and do they have a good track record of placing students in jobs that you're interested in and things like how collaborative or competitive the labs/groups are in the department. But it also encompasses things like how comfortable are you going to feel living in that city (you're going to be spending several years there and you need to be comfortable enough to do good work) and for some people their 'gut feeling' is important in how they feel about deciding to attend a school. For some people they may need to go to a school in a particular area or region due to their family needs. Of course there are probably other things that I'm forgetting that applicants consider when determining fit, and since it's a personal process, the importance of each factor varies from person to person.

Schools have to consider the 'fit' of an applicant as well and they will usually look at things like your research interests, career plans and research experience in determining if you'd be a good fit for them. They will also look at your letters of recommendation, especially if they're from profs that are well known. Essentially they want to gauge whether you'd be able to assist them in the research they are currently doing or want to do (while you pursue your own research) and whether you'd be able to successfully complete the program. Since spaces are limited, they'll choose the ones that are most likely to succeed and to assist with the research they're interested in.

It's a beautiful thing when the applicant and the school both agree that they're good fits for each other.

Edited July 25, 2011 by newms