How much does your POI interest in you help?

[uhohlemonster]

Hi all!

I've been having some really great phone and in-person conversations with professors at Rutgers, Brown, CUNY, and NYU. My question is - how much do you think these positive informal interviews help come admissions decisions time? I mean, I know this is by no means an exact science, but perhaps current students could reflect on their admissions experience and whether or not previous correspondance correlated to where they actually got in. For example, did any professors outwardly say they would be excited to work with you, and in those cases, did the admissions result mirror that excitement? I'm just trying to analyze how much my efforts with correspondance will end up mattering.

Thanks!

[TMP]

I think, ultimately, these are just networking opportunities. Nobody knows for sure what the executive is going to do and who else are applying (but didn't contact) during the application season. Personally, prior contact didn't get me in but did get me in working relationships with some of the professors. I wasn't bitter and couldn't blame them, even if/when they apologize for my rejection/waitlist, but rather I just wanted to be able to see them as mentors and network contacts. Their feedback and research were too important to my own work that I just couldn't write them off.

[uhohlemonster]

Thanks for the answer! I appreciate your thoughtfulness. I plan to not be bitter if/when I do not get into various places. These professors are doing me a huge favor - each time I speak to them, I get valuable information and advice, and perhaps most importantly, I get clarity of purpose for myself.

I'd love to hear if other people have similar and different experiences, or from current applicants who are in touch with POIs and just want to chat about it.

[Safferz]

I think every department is different, and while some professors may try to push for the students they want, the general consensus seems to be that prior contact with a professor has little to no bearing on the actual admissions process in most history programs. From what I understand, at most schools a professor will be able to read the application file of a student that has mentioned him/her in a SOP, but admission decisions come down to the committee. Making contact with a POI is certainly useful to find out who is taking on students in the fall and what the POI's current research interests are (sites can often be out of date), which then allows you to determine whether a program is a good fit and perhaps gives you some material to tailor your SOP to that program.

[taybaxter]

Check back with me in a few months and I may be able to tell you. For now though, I've gotten three things from contacting professors: 1) Information (really valuable information about prof. availability, whether they feel it's a good fit for me, working groups, classes, grad students to talk to, etc.) 2) Confidence (I've had several really great phone convos with profs at various schools and many more great emails. Some have told me they want to work with me and I seem like a strong candidate. We'll see.) 3) Silence (a lot of profs I've contacted never replied. I've learned not to take that personally.

Edited December 6, 2011 by taybaxter

[taybaxter]

I think, ultimately, these are just networking opportunities. Nobody knows for sure what the executive is going to do and who else are applying (but didn't contact) during the application season. Personally, prior contact didn't get me in but did get me in working relationships with some of the professors. I wasn't bitter and couldn't blame them, even if/when they apologize for my rejection/waitlist, but rather I just wanted to be able to see them as mentors and network contacts. Their feedback and research were too important to my own work that I just couldn't write them off.

Yes! I forgot to add this too but this is a really important networking device. As my prof. told me, I'm meeting my future colleagues! I already feel like I will be in close contact with two in particular in the future even if I don't attend their schools.

Edited December 6, 2011 by taybaxter

[uhohlemonster]

Thanks guys!! Really interesting perspectives. Keep them coming, fellow aspiring historians...

[Hopin'-n-Prayin']

_{I imagine that a positive phone contact has to help in the admissions process. To what degree it helps is another story. From what I understand, professors need a reason to go to bat for someone as one of thier admits, so the more 'personal' the relationship, the better. I think it is also probably very rare that a positive phone contact can overcome an otherwise poor application- I also suppose that the adcomm is going to resist any endorsement of a prospective student whose quantifiable portions of the app "below standards."}

_{For me, the bottom line is this: I am guessing that 80% or more of the applicants to major PhD programs all have GPAs above 3.5, GREs in the 90+ percentile for verbal, an impressive array of research at the undergrad (or M.A.) level and glowing letters of recommendation. I am also guessing that closer to 100% of the members of this forum fit this description. My point is, at some point, SOMETHING has to separate us from each other in the eyes of the adcomm. What is that something? Quality of the undergrad program? An M.A. in history? The precise research topic of a senior thesis or masters thesis? The quality of insight and workmanship demonstrated by the writing sample?}

_{The personal nature of the relationship with applicants developed through e-mail, phone calls and face-to-face meetings has to have a significant impact in that separation process...I would figure.. Its always better to be "that person from Brooklyn I spoke to twice a few months ago," than an anonymous paper stack with essentially the same data in it as 200 other paper stacks.}

_{So,perhaps my speculative reasonings and musings can provide you with some needed comfort over the next few months as complete strangers determine the fate of your future}

[cooperstreet]

_{For me, the bottom line is this: I am guessing that 80% or more of the applicants to major PhD programs all have GPAs above 3.5, GREs in the 90+ percentile for verbal, an impressive array of research at the undergrad (or M.A.) level and glowing letters of recommendation. I am also guessing that closer to 100% of the members of this forum fit this description. My point is, at some point, SOMETHING has to separate us from each other in the eyes of the adcomm. What is that something? Quality of the undergrad program? An M.A. in history? The precise research topic of a senior thesis or masters thesis? The quality of insight and workmanship demonstrated by the writing sample?}

I would say that something is definately the quality of the writing sample, publications and conference presentations. Its all about the research baby. Don't forget language training!

[Safferz]

_{For me, the bottom line is this: I am guessing that 80% or more of the applicants to major PhD programs all have GPAs above 3.5, GREs in the 90+ percentile for verbal, an impressive array of research at the undergrad (or M.A.) level and glowing letters of recommendation. I am also guessing that closer to 100% of the members of this forum fit this description. My point is, at some point, SOMETHING has to separate us from each other in the eyes of the adcomm. What is that something? Quality of the undergrad program? An M.A. in history? The precise research topic of a senior thesis or masters thesis? The quality of insight and workmanship demonstrated by the writing sample?}

I'm not so sure most applicants are that competitive. Many applications are weeded out immediately on the basis of GPA and GRE scores, and once the SOP, CV, LORs, writing sample are considered, the applicant pool becomes even smaller. I remember a prof who is on my current university's adcomm telling me that most of the applications they receive have sloppily written SOPs on projects that were not well thought out, and that a generic, neutral LOR is what often ruins an application. If you are a strong candidate with a strong application and interesting research questions, that already separates you from the pack.

[Hopin'-n-Prayin']

^coop,

^{I definitely agree that the things you mentioned are all very important. No doubt In many instances research accomplishments and language are the deal makers and deal breakers. I guess my point is: what happens in those instances where two or more applicants are essentially indistinguishable after all of the obejctive date has been assessed. Most people will by nature seek out the more comfortable alternative...the applicant they "know"... but I am just speculating and generalizing...}

[cooperstreet]

You're probably right. I'm sure that the final adcom decisions cound't be distilled down to a formula either, when choosing between two quantitatively identical but qualitatively different candidates, there's probably no criteria for choosing one of the other than can be distilled out from that process. In other words, flip a coin.

[TMP]

OP, I think you're trying to justify the time you've spent with the professors in increasing your chances of getting admitted and putting a lot of value to it.

The buzzword these day is "interesting." I'm working in academia (in a way) and that's the word I hear literally every day by my colleagues when discussing academic research. Nobody wants to talk about a topic that's done to death unless it contains new materials or methodology (assisted by technology). People want to see understudied topics, topics that haven't been well-explored, or even different angles that can shed led on our understanding of that broad topic (bearing a new topic).

You really need to let your SOP, LORs and writing sample speak for themselves. That's the best way for your POI and the executive committee to compare you and others in the same field. The quality of your research and writing matters much more than your personality (though that's what your LORs are for- assenting your potential as a colleague). Nobody has the same research experience or education in writing. The 4 of us students that my MA adviser has (had), though we're all interested in the same field, geographical area, and time period, we all couldn't be more different from each other in terms of our language training, educational experiences and thematic interests. My adviser picked people with interesting research ideas/topics and one of the two languages required by my field.

So, really, go back to my original thought- don't keep justifying that these are going to help you with the admissions at some level but consider these contacts networking opportunities. Remember, you're not the only one getting in touch. I had actually had a POI say to me once over phone, "I've had so many people contact me. Can you remind me what your research interest is again?" I didn't flinch. Instead, I pitched myself like a saleswoman and get a request for a writing sample. Five minutes phone conversation.

[Hopin'-n-Prayin']

I'm not so sure most applicants are that competitive. Many applications are weeded out immediately on the basis of GPA and GRE scores, and once the SOP, CV, LORs, writing sample are considered, the applicant pool becomes even smaller. I remember a prof who is on my current university's adcomm telling me that most of the applications they receive have sloppily written SOPs on projects that were not well thought out, and that a generic, neutral LOR is what often ruins an application. If you are a strong candidate with a strong application and interesting research questions, that already separates you from the pack.

For my sake, I hope you are right- my frame of reference comes mostly from this forum, where people downplay their 98% GREs and list many impressive sounding accopmlishments. One of the profs on the adcomm at my school says that most SOPs refer to the "passion for history since I was young..." which he says merits instant placement in the reject pile...except our dept. needs the money, so the is no reject pile...

[uhohlemonster]

This is all really interesting feedback. I think I'm learning the difference between the people I've had sort of standard discussions with, and the ones with whom I've had lengthier and more personal talks. So for example, one woman met with me at her University during her sabbatical semester when she hadn't been there in months (I did not insist that by any means), and spoke with me for an hour and a half. She told me at the end that she would support my application as long as all the other things were in check - GPA, GRE, LoR, SoP, etc. We've had just a little correspondance since, but the feeling at that meeting was really comfortable and wonderful. With other professors, we've spoken on the phone anywhere from 15-45 minutes, and I came out of those discussions with various hunches. With one school, I've found that they are looking for people in my field because they hadn't had a strong Mid-East History faculty in the past, but that because they were hiring 4 new ME profs and a well-known leader for them, I might have just struck at the right time. I suppose that after all of your feedback, I've come to the conclusion that it really depends with these things - if you have a connection, they may just go to bat for you. This also depends on the circumstances, like who hasn't gotten advisees in a while, which areas need more students/strengthening, which ones are over saturated - that we have absolutely no control over. We just have to hope we strike gold.

Good luck all, and I'm still open to more experiences and perspectives. It's always fascinating.

[Sigaba]

When you're interacting with professors, please be very aware of your mindset. If your mindset is "I'm communicating with this professor to up my chances of getting into Happyland University," don't be shocked if the professor concludes that you view her as a means to an end. Similarly, if you're communicating with a historian for the purpose of "networking" don't be surprised if that person concludes that your priority centers around career management, not historiography.

On the other hand, if a conversation with a professor reflects your desire to learn the craft as well as a genuine intellectual interest in the person with whom you're communicating and the work he or she is doing, you might make a better impression.

My $0.02.

[TMP]

I'm just piggybacking on Sigaba's warning to make sure you're going into these conversations with a balanced agenda.

True. The important thing is to make sure that you have a mutually beneficially conversation. Make sure that each of you learn something new in your areas of research. That's why POIs ask you about your thesis project: they want to know what's new about your research on a broader topic that's been studied. They know that you're going to learn from them about their research (they do expect you to ask them what's happening with their projects) and the craft of history but what can they learn from you, as a future colleague? I think this is important (an additional bonus, really) for POIs who are in early stages of their new projects and your interests happen to lie in that area, so your future engagements can encourage POIs to think in other ways and you'll be with them the whole time they're working on the book.

No question that these conversations are hard to pull off well but with lots of practice, it can be done. And you will continue to do this during your graduate program with other professors (as you search for committee members) and at conferences.

[RevolutionBlues]

I would like to echo and supplement the sentiments expressed by taybaxter. I have no way of knowing whether contacting faculty has had a direct effect on my application's chances, but I did learn a lot from it. 1) Information- I found out from some people that they will be on sabbatical and so not accepting any students or will be retiring and so will only take on MA students; I discovered which professors seemed legitimately interested and encouraged me to apply and which ones responded with only a terse comment on competitiveness; I learned which departments have a faculty and student body active beyond the academic world; I also gleaned more directly applicable bits of knowledge such as that school x looks right away at the writing sample to see if you're using foreign language primary sources, that school y is all about who you've read and want to emulate, and school z really looks at you as a person and what that could bring to the department. 2) Confidence- just knowing that somebody somewhere might actually be interested in reading your writing sample, would like to work with you, or can make it through your SOP without laughing and lighting it on fire is incredibly calming. 3) Silence- If someone isn't willing to respond at all, even to say whether they might accept a student in their field, it may make you think twice about whether you want your life to revolve around them for the next five-plus years. So, whether or not I get in anywhere, I'm glad I corresponded with faculty first.

[kotov]

In my case, where I was applying to a smaller department, it mattered a lot, since my adviser is pretty high up in the department -- he told me there was a good bit of in-fighting among people there trying to get their candidate through, but he won out...your experience may not be the same, but it was important in my case. Can't hurt, right?

[oseirus]

So from the smattering responses I've read on here, I have come to the following conclusions: meetings POIs will help you, it will hurt you and they have absolutely no bearing on the outcome of your app. I love it! I realize how subjective the whole thing is but you would think there would be some uniformity, outside of the applications themselves. Even the style of SOPs (from what I've read on grade cafe) seems to be different. Although there seems to be some sort of consensus that you shouldn't mention your life-long love of history but outside of that, there seems to be no hard and fast rule as to what is to be expected. I come from a background where everything is regimented and even the most illogically-seeming act has a rationale, so this whole process fascinates and intrigues me. Be of good cheer friends!

[simone von c]

You've figured it out, Oseirus. Sometimes I just shake my head and laugh when I read the posts which confidently tell others how the process works, how admissions committees in various universities will think and act, and how doctoral students behave. There is no single truth, my friends. If you really want to do a PhD, prepare yourselves as best you can in the years leading up to it (languages, grades, research, referrals), write your best applications, and send them out. If the stars align, you'll get an offer (or several) to have five funded years somewhere. If not, and you're sharp, you'll find another rewarding direction for your life. I don't think any of us can honestly offer a neat package of answers. Best wishes to each of you this season!

[Sigaba]

So from the smattering responses I've read on here, I have come to the following conclusions: meetings POIs will help you, it will hurt you and they have absolutely no bearing on the outcome of your app. I love it! I realize how subjective the whole thing is but you would think there would be some uniformity, outside of the applications themselves. Even the style of SOPs (from what I've read on grade cafe) seems to be different. Although there seems to be some sort of consensus that you shouldn't mention your life-long love of history but outside of that, there seems to be no hard and fast rule as to what is to be expected. I come from a background where everything is regimented and even the most illogically-seeming act has a rationale, so this whole process fascinates and intrigues me. Be of good cheer friends!

Oserious--

One of the issues with this BB is that it presently has too few members who have gone through the process and then gotten a debriefing as to why they did or did not get into certain programs.

Also, it appears that there are not many members who have been taken behind the curtain to learn how members of their department think and how decisions get made. (Some who may have such experience are sitting on their hands and laughing rather than bellying up to the bar and throwing in their two cents. )

As far as the desire for "hard and fast rules" to success and a clear cut rationale to the whole process, what would be the fun if such rules and rationality actually existed?

[oseirus]

Oserious--

One of the issues with this BB is that it presently has too few members who have gone through the process and then gotten a debriefing as to why they did or did not get into certain programs.

Also, it appears that there are not many members who have been taken behind the curtain to learn how members of their department think and how decisions get made. (Some who may have such experience are sitting on their hands and laughing rather than bellying up to the bar and throwing in their two cents. )

As far as the desire for "hard and fast rules" to success and a clear cut rationale to the whole process, what would be the fun if such rules and rationality actually existed?

I have grudgingly come to love the debriefing process because it makes thing so much clearer. Checklist discipline is something I NEVER thought I would be a fan of such things but once you drink that kool-aid, it is too late for you. I also want to clarify that my snarky-sounding comments weren't meant to dissuade others from commenting or positing their theories, I was just amused by the disparate viewpoints and at this stage of the game, I always feel a little humor lightens the situation or maybe that's just me?

[kotov]

Oserious--

One of the issues with this BB is that it presently has too few members who have gone through the process and then gotten a debriefing as to why they did or did not get into certain programs.

Also, it appears that there are not many members who have been taken behind the curtain to learn how members of their department think and how decisions get made. (Some who may have such experience are sitting on their hands and laughing rather than bellying up to the bar and throwing in their two cents. )

As far as the desire for "hard and fast rules" to success and a clear cut rationale to the whole process, what would be the fun if such rules and rationality actually existed?

The main reason I'm hesitant to do this is to avoid spiders in my own department since it's small and anyone who did any research at all could figure out who I was. Also, I don't know how much information from my own situation would help, since I'm at a small, low-level program (so I'm probably not the one to be taking advice from).

[Sigaba]

The main reason I'm hesitant to do this is to avoid spiders in my own department since it's small and anyone who did any research at all could figure out who I was. Also, I don't know how much information from my own situation would help, since I'm at a small, low-level program (so I'm probably not the one to be taking advice from).

kotov--

While I will not question your decision to post infrequently, I will say that I regret your relative silence.