How problematic and ugly is listing in SOP?

[perrykm2]

So, I have what I feel is a pretty solid SOP. However, between going over my [relevant] academic history and future research interests, I don't really include any specific authors, theorists, or cultural artifacts. How tasteless is 'not completely but pretty much' just listing theorists I would use in my future research? I think a lot of it is implied by my specific interests, but people have told me that a SOP should have multiple interwoven references to specific theorists, authors, blahblah.

Am I committing some kind of crime?

[truckbasket]

If you're applying with the BA, then programs might be relatively lenient regarding a lack of theoretical engagement as, chances are, you haven't had much opportunity to develop their place in your projected work. However, if you're applying with the MA, then you might raise a few eyebrows by not mentioning at least a critical foundation (or at least a contextualized intervention) for your ideas. But with that said, it all depends on your project. I'm sure there are plenty of cases where the critical structure doesn't hold as much weight as other aspects of the project.

[Phil Sparrow]

Very few successful applicants I know mentioned any theorists at all. Primary authors are perhaps more common to note, but not theorists. You are not expected to have pinned down your methodology before you even arrive! So long as you make clear you have a *relatively* strong focus (e.g., gender and sexuality, history of cognition) that is well-articulated, and so long as you do not plan to focus on a particular theorist/philosopher/school itself, there is really no need to mention particular theorists--which will, 90% of the time, come across as...shall we say, "academically immature."

Edited October 30, 2011 by Phil Sparrow

[Timshel]

Very few successful applicants I know mentioned any theorists at all. Primary authors are perhaps more common to note, but not theorists. You are not expected to have pinned down your methodology before you even arrive! So long as you make clear you have a *relatively* strong focus (e.g., gender and sexuality, history of cognition) that is well-articulated, and so long as you do not plan to focus on a particular theorist/philosopher/school itself, there is really no need to mention particular theorists--which will, 90% of the time, come across as...shall we say, "academically immature."

I don't know about this blanket statement. I think it depends on your focus. I think if your focus is theory, then of course you are going to talk about theorists. And I wouldn't say it's "academically immature" if it's woven into your idea. I know several people who mentioned theorists in their SOP that did get into good programs. I think what WOULD be wrong would be to say, "I plan on using the following theorists: A, B, and C."

Again, I think whether or not you list any depends specifically on your area and focus.

[Two Espressos]

I don't know about this blanket statement. I think it depends on your focus. I think if your focus is theory, then of course you are going to talk about theorists. And I wouldn't say it's "academically immature" if it's woven into your idea. I know several people who mentioned theorists in their SOP that did get into good programs. I think what WOULD be wrong would be to say, "I plan on using the following theorists: A, B, and C."

Again, I think whether or not you list any depends specifically on your area and focus.

So, then, mentioning theorists that have informed one's research interests or something of that sort would be OK?

[truckbasket]

I don't know about this blanket statement. I think it depends on your focus. I think if your focus is theory, then of course you are going to talk about theorists. And I wouldn't say it's "academically immature" if it's woven into your idea. I know several people who mentioned theorists in their SOP that did get into good programs. I think what WOULD be wrong would be to say, "I plan on using the following theorists: A, B, and C."

Again, I think whether or not you list any depends specifically on your area and focus.

I think what Phil may be warning against here is a sort of dilettante understanding of theory, dropping big names just for the sake of it, for example. Outlining a potential theoretical mode seems feasible, and the writing sample will obviously show off your ability to engage with theoretical conversations, but as you mention, simply stating that you like Derrida and Foucault and Lacan probably won't do you any favors. Theory-heads tend to be two steps ahead of everyone else in that arena, so they'd be hard to impress (i.e., they're interested in theory that was published last week). Theory is difficult to grasp in the way that academics who work with it exclusively can, so, as Phil notes, you do run the risk of appearing sophomoric.

[Timshel]

So, then, mentioning theorists that have informed one's research interests or something of that sort would be OK?

I would think so. I think it is especially important to mention theorists who have coined certain terms or concepts. One of my professors sat on SUNY Buffalo's ad comm committee when she was a grad student there and she said that knowing what's being said is really important. For example, she said that there was no way they could go through all of the writing samples, so they would read the introduction, conclusion, and then look at the Works Cited page to make sure the student was citing relevant and seminal texts concerning that topic.

[truckbasket]

So, then, mentioning theorists that have informed one's research interests or something of that sort would be OK?

Two, as you're interested primarily in theory -- and that's what you're intending to focus on -- you'll probably be well-suited to make sure you're demonstrating a strong understanding of the current conversations that are occurring in theory in relation to past movements. Theory is very, very trendy -- be aware of that. Last thing you want is to be seen wearing last season's ideas!

[Timshel]

I think what Phil may be warning against here is a sort of dilettante understanding of theory, dropping big names just for the sake of it, for example. Outlining a potential theoretical mode seems feasible, and the writing sample will obviously show off your ability to engage with theoretical conversations, but as you mention, simply stating that you like Derrida and Foucault and Lacan probably won't do you any favors. Theory-heads tend to be two steps ahead of everyone else in that arena, so they'd be hard to impress (i.e., they're interested in theory that was published last week). Theory is difficult to grasp in the way that academics who work with it exclusively can, so, as Phil notes, you do run the risk of appearing sophomoric.

Yeah, I agree. You don't want to be like, oh yeah, I really like Derrida and Foucault. However, for people like me, I'm more interested in the application of certain theories and concepts to a certain type of literature, but I don't have specific authors and things like that that I want to focus on, necessarily.

[Timshel]

Two, as you're interested primarily in theory -- and that's what you're intending to focus on -- you'll probably be well-suited to make sure you're demonstrating a strong understanding of the current conversations that are occurring in theory in relation to past movements. Theory is very, very trendy -- be aware of that. Last thing you want is to be seen wearing last season's ideas!

This is very true!

[Two Espressos]

I would think so. I think it is especially important to mention theorists who have coined certain terms or concepts. One of my professors sat on SUNY Buffalo's ad comm committee when she was a grad student there and she said that knowing what's being said is really important. For example, she said that there was no way they could go through all of the writing samples, so they would read the introduction, conclusion, and then look at the Works Cited page to make sure the student was citing relevant and seminal texts concerning that topic.

I'm pretty sure that theory will be my primary focus, so that's why I was wondering.

And that's interesting concerning SUNY Buffalo. They seem very theory-oriented there, more so than other places. Hence why I'd love to attend there.

[truckbasket]

Yeah, I agree. You don't want to be like, oh yeah, I really like Derrida and Foucault. However, for people like me, I'm more interested in the application of certain theories and concepts to a certain type of literature, but I don't have specific authors and things like that that I want to focus on, necessarily.

But as you do trauma studies, having some knowledge of current conversations in Affect Theory would be helpful for you as that's a relatively booming area right now.

[Two Espressos]

Two, as you're interested primarily in theory -- and that's what you're intending to focus on -- you'll probably be well-suited to make sure you're demonstrating a strong understanding of the current conversations that are occurring in theory in relation to past movements. Theory is very, very trendy -- be aware of that. Last thing you want is to be seen wearing last season's ideas!

Yes, I had thought about that too! I'm in no position right now to talk about current conversations in theory, but I aim to change that via an independent study in "Contemporary Theory and Technology" next spring. The main purpose of that study--besides working with Dr. Cool Gender Theorist --is to overhaul my understanding of theory and produce a theory-heavy writing sample of 25 pages or so.

[cquin]

I don't mean to hijack this post, but this is somewhat related--what is the final word on listing potential professors in one's SOP? (E.g., "I am excited to work with Professor A for reasons X, Y, Z") I've always heard that it's absolutely imperative, but many others seem to think it's brown nosing and unnecessary.

[Timshel]

I don't mean to hijack this post, but this is somewhat related--what is the final word on listing potential professors in one's SOP? (E.g., "I am excited to work with Professor A for reasons X, Y, Z") I've always heard that it's absolutely imperative, but many others seem to think it's brown nosing and unnecessary.

You are going to get mixed advice on this. I have even had mixed advice from my LORs. I think what I'm going to end up doing is possibly listing in the section about why the school is a good fit what classes and professors that school has that would be interesting or related to my area, but I am not going to specifically say "I look forward to working with A, B, and C" because that could limit you and you don't know who's on the ad comm, either. Departments have a lot of politics.

[Two Espressos]

I don't mean to hijack this post, but this is somewhat related--what is the final word on listing potential professors in one's SOP? (E.g., "I am excited to work with Professor A for reasons X, Y, Z") I've always heard that it's absolutely imperative, but many others seem to think it's brown nosing and unnecessary.

I've anecdotal information for you.

I asked a professor of mine, one whom I highly trust and one who has had some success in academia, about this very issue. Her response was, more or less, that I should not produce a laundry list of potential professors in my SOP, for two reasons: firstly, one, as an applicant, has no insider information on which professors may be retiring or otherwise leaving the university; also, academia is highly political, such that mentioning certain professors exclusively may in fact alienate or annoy the admissions committee. Alternatively, she suggested that I talk more generally about my interests and then about how they would fit within the overall work being done in the program.

I realize that those concerns have been expressed by others in this thread and elsewhere on The Grad Cafe, but I wanted to supplement this information with my own.

[Timshel]

I've anecdotal information for you.

I asked a professor of mine, one whom I highly trust and one who has had some success in academia, about this very issue. Her response was, more or less, that I should not produce a laundry list of potential professors in my SOP, for two reasons: firstly, one, as an applicant, has no insider information on which professors may be retiring or otherwise leaving the university; also, academia is highly political, such that mentioning certain professors exclusively may in fact alienate or annoy the admissions committee. Alternatively, she suggested that I talk more generally about my interests and then about how they would fit within the overall work being done in the program.

I realize that those concerns have been expressed by others in this thread and elsewhere on The Grad Cafe, but I wanted to supplement this information with my own.

I agree. I think it's better to talk more about what the program is known for what kind of classes they offer, things like that. I, too, have been told that politics and insider information could potentially hurt you in an SOP, but at the same time, you want to talk about their program specifically to show that you did your research and you know why you would be a good fit there.

[cquin]

I've anecdotal information for you.

I asked a professor of mine, one whom I highly trust and one who has had some success in academia, about this very issue. Her response was, more or less, that I should not produce a laundry list of potential professors in my SOP, for two reasons: firstly, one, as an applicant, has no insider information on which professors may be retiring or otherwise leaving the university; also, academia is highly political, such that mentioning certain professors exclusively may in fact alienate or annoy the admissions committee. Alternatively, she suggested that I talk more generally about my interests and then about how they would fit within the overall work being done in the program.

I realize that those concerns have been expressed by others in this thread and elsewhere on The Grad Cafe, but I wanted to supplement this information with my own.

Thanks. This does make sense; I naively had not even considered the politics of ad coms. I suppose I'm trying to find a balance between rattling off a list of professors and showing that I have truly done my research. Faculty *is* a big part of why I've selected certain schools, and I want ad coms to know that I'm genuinely interested in them.

[cquin]

You are going to get mixed advice on this. I have even had mixed advice from my LORs. I think what I'm going to end up doing is possibly listing in the section about why the school is a good fit what classes and professors that school has that would be interesting or related to my area, but I am not going to specifically say "I look forward to working with A, B, and C" because that could limit you and you don't know who's on the ad comm, either. Departments have a lot of politics.

Hm, I think I see what you're saying, thank you. But how can you speak of the school's professors without listing names? Use a vague, general phrase like "The faculty of University X are working heavily in this area..."?