Avoiding brown nosing in SOP

[cquin]

In my writing sample, I cite several papers from a professor at my dream school. I am very tempted to draw attention to this in my SOP--something along the lines of, "Hey guys, I'm not kidding when I say I love your program, look at how much Professor X has influenced me," though perhaps a bit more eloquently My question is: will this come off as obnoxious and brown nosing? Nothing in that statement is false; this particular professor HAS influenced me tremendously and I would kill to work with her, but is it in poor taste to harp on that? I understand that there's quite a bit on debate on the topic of listing POIs, and I'm trying to be as diplomatic as possible in my statement (e.g., referring to classes of interest rather than specific professors so as to avoid potentially irritating or marginalizing someone on the ad com), but, ugh, I just love this program so much and want to convey that.

[bdon19]

I'm having a similar issue with my statement. Essentially, there's one professor who's at my dream school whose scholarship basically says everything I want to say about what I want to do. She'll be showing up in all of my SOPs, not just the one for the program where she teaches, so I'm trying to think of ways to make this not seem like I'm simply brown-nosing at her own program (which is, ironically, Brown ). Luckily, that's one of my later deadlines, so hopefully I'll have fine-tuned my statement by then. What I think I'm planning on doing is integrating this professor in with my introductory paragraph (which kind of goes through and mentions some of the contemporary scholarship on my field and why it's relevant), and then when I get to the "fit" part of the statement going back and referencing her. Of course, this statement as yet remains unwritten, so I'm not sure how it will turn out!

...I need to go write that. Literally right now.

[0000000000AAA]

I know the advice I've heard runs against the grain, but I've been advised to do as little as that as possible. On prof (Yale 02) said that you applicants who don't bother even mentioning the program come off as more professional and motivated. Another (UVA late 90s) sort of shrugged and advised me not to include anything in my SOP about any given school (he said all it demonstrates is familiarity with their website and JSTOR). If you're interests overlap, they will see that. Besides, I've heard from many professors, at many good programs, that professors really don't want students who will just continue their work.

I'm sure you wouldn't end up doing that, but I think viable originality counts for more than fit.

Edited November 21, 2011 by WellSpring

[HunkyDory]

I've been told to include people that could potentially chair your dissertation committee to show how well you would fit. I wouldn't Brown-Nose or act like you'll just say whatever they said, but use it as a way to expand upon things you want to say about your research interests and show a fit.

E.G. I was just drafting my NYU SoP and mention wanting to work with Lytle Shaw, who wrote Frank O'Hara and the Poetics of Coterie. I don't really touch on it in my general statement but O'Hara and what Shaw says about O'Hara are heavily linked, so I get a chance to explain a "fit" and say more about my research interests.

[TripWillis]

I think it's well-advised to mention who you think you'd like to work with. And if you happen to have a familiarity with the work of people who are there and they've influenced you to apply, it couldn't hurt to mention. There is a difference between brown nosing and personalizing the SoP, showing that you've done research on the program and explored where you think you fit in its structure. I think brown nosing is typically perceived as such when you surround the person's name with grandiose adjectives and adverbs. So maybe just avoid that. Stick to facts.

[Timshel]

As I've said in many threads, there are conflicting thoughts on whether or not to list people's names for various reasons. See the other threads for a more in-depth explanation of that topic. However, I have been advised by someone on an Adcomm to NEVER give names, but I know some people who did and got in places, so I think it just depends on the school and who is on the adcomm. I think the whole thing is a crap shoot.

[lolopixie]

Every question asked on this board will get conflicting answers. Do what you think is best. Then I suggest praying to the academia gods that you do what is right! lol

[Grunty DaGnome]

I don't think it's brown nosing if your sample really actively uses the professor's work. Brown nosing is more like reading the web site and dropping in as many names as possible for no reason.

That said, I don't really know the first thing about what will work in a personal statement and what won't. I suppose our goal is to both talk about our interests while giving the ad. comms. an idea of who we are and what distinguishes us from the 600 other applicants in the pile.

Probably -- again, I know nothing -- limit your name check to one, maybe two sentences max and then get on with the business of demonstrating the 1,000 other things we're supposed to be demonstrating in those 3 1/2 pages.

[cquin]

What a crap shoot this all is, indeed. Thanks for the replies, everyone.

[Sigaba]

Maybe you could borrow a tactic from the historians' took kit. Rather than dropping names, mention how your work is "informed" by a sensibility or a "trajectory." Alternatively, you could just integrate that sensibility into your personal statement.

For example, if I were to write that scholars need to look at the U.S. Navy during World War I from the bottom up, or that I wanted to write about everyday life in the American army between 1919 and 1939, I would be shooting off flares that say I've been influenced by German social historians such as Ian Kershaw. (The key words are "everyday life" and "from the bottom up.")

HTH.

[ecritdansleau]

Besides, I've heard from many professors, at many good programs, that professors really don't want students who will just continue their work.

I'm sure you wouldn't end up doing that, but I think viable originality counts for more than fit.

I think the idea of "viable originality" is really important. A professor will be bored if you want to reproduce a book they've already written. I've spent a good deal of time looking over recent dissertations and who their committees/chairs have been, and what I've seen really reflects the notion of "viable originality": asking questions that relate to past scholarship, but often taken in new directions. Most committees and the student are within the same century/field, especially the chair, but sometimes there are surprising disparities in the specialization of the committee readers and student, and yet the connection between their work is still obvious. Take for instance, Anahid Nersessian--a new assistant prof at Columbia--who specializes in 18th century British literature but one of her committee members is Lauren Berlant, who focuses on American culture in the 19th and 20th century. The connection between their work is obvious though, when you notice that Nersessian relates politics and affect (precisely what Berlant does, just in a different time period.)

[0000000000AAA]

I think the idea of "viable originality" is really important. A professor will be bored if you want to reproduce a book they've already written. I've spent a good deal of time looking over recent dissertations and who their committees/chairs have been, and what I've seen really reflects the notion of "viable originality": asking questions that relate to past scholarship, but often taken in new directions. Most committees and the student are within the same century/field, especially the chair, but sometimes there are surprising disparities in the specialization of the committee readers and student, and yet the connection between their work is still obvious. Take for instance, Anahid Nersessian--a new assistant prof at Columbia--who specializes in 18th century British literature but one of her committee members is Lauren Berlant, who focuses on American culture in the 19th and 20th century. The connection between their work is obvious though, when you notice that Nersessian relates politics and affect (precisely what Berlant does, just in a different time period.)

EXACTLY! "Fit" (if there is such a thing) isn't about matching interests with professors butabout piquing their interest. I've been told specifically to avoid identifying myself with other critics (by name or tendency). Instead, identify myself with my work and let my work interact (organically) with other criticism.

[rainy_day]

Wait, this whole thread is blowing my mind. People have been told *not* to discuss individual faculty in their fit paragraphs? How on earth do you demonstrate fit otherwise? This literally goes against every advice I've ever received!

[TripWillis]

Wait, this whole thread is blowing my mind. People have been told *not* to discuss individual faculty in their fit paragraphs? How on earth do you demonstrate fit otherwise? This literally goes against every advice I've ever received!

THANK you.

[Timshel]

Okay, there is a difference between stating several faculty members, courses, etc. that would fit for you and then saying "I am applying because I want to work with X." The former is what you should do, not the latter. Or at least what I've been told, and that's what I'm doing.

[gellert]

^ I think it's pretty field-specific. It sounds like in the humanities, for example, it's looked down upon a bit more. In my field (psychology), it's as good as required (yes, even that you directly state 'I am fascinated by the work of Professor X in Y lab'). In fact, if you don't mention a POI/lab in your SOP, you plain aren't getting in.

As far as referencing scholars from a school who have influenced you but who aren't your POI (be it that they are retired or deceased), I'd go for simply making a very straight-forward statement about how you have been positively influenced by these theorists in your own approach to your field. But as the others said, don't couch that in a whole lot of superlatives. Just mention that you found their work illuminating or persuasive, and move right along.

Edited December 8, 2011 by gellert

[Medievalmaniac]

One thing I would point out is that you have cited that professor on your writing sample... so it will be clear, if they read your writing sample, that you would like to work with that person. So it's probably just a wasted SOP line to add this there as well - it might therefore serve you better to conserve that space for your ideas and what you are bringing to the table.

[Enzian]

I can't wait until someone pops up with a post like "my whole SOP was devoted to namedropping and superlatives and I got in everywhere." That will really complete the picture.

Gotta give everybody props for honestly trying to help, though. Maybe it's just that all of our advisers are guessing based on their own personal (anecdotal) experience?

Personally, I'm following the old line: when in doubt, leave it out.

Or is it...when you doubt it, write about it...?