SOP & Academic Rock Stars

[rainy_day]

How are any of you dealing with your "fit" paragraph when it comes to the presence of academic rockstars at a given university?

For example, I obviously do not think Spivak and Butler are going to be sitting on my dissertation committee, but their presence at Columbia speaks to why I want to go there. They are both hugely informative in my research, so it seems silly to pretend they are not there, but I cannot figure out how to mention them without sounding like a moron. Any ideas?

[taybaxter]

How are any of you dealing with your "fit" paragraph when it comes to the presence of academic rockstars at a given university?

For example, I obviously do not think Spivak and Butler are going to be sitting on my dissertation committee, but their presence at Columbia speaks to why I want to go there. They are both hugely informative in my research, so it seems silly to pretend they are not there, but I cannot figure out how to mention them without sounding like a moron. Any ideas?

Why wouldn't they sit on your committee? If you're admitted I'd think you'd have as good of a chance to snag them as any other graduate student.

[Sigaba]

FWIW, a recent thread in this forum discusses a similar issue <<

[0000000000AAA]

I suspect that inafuturelife is right, they probably don't. And more importantly: I've heard that rockstars make awful advisers. When they stop being scholars and become public intellectuals of sorts then their focuses and priorities changes. I think it's better to have a solid (after all it's Columbia you're talking about--anyone with tenure is for real), working professor than a rock star.

And realistically, the impact of Butler and Spivak is so broad that you can be influenced by them and use them at any school in the country. After all, who hasn't been influenced in some way by Butler and Spivak? Unless their most recent work--and less known work--is what is relevant to your work?

[TripWillis]

One of my letter writers had Henry Louis Gates Jr. as her advisor. She said he was great, except, "He has no time for students."

However, he did provide a blurb for her book. So, I guess that's worth something.

But yeah, I wouldn't bet on the rock stars....

[Phil Sparrow]

Really, don't mention them. It will look naive. I think it's pretty much assumed they are a big draw for everyone applying to Columbia, so there's no need to go out and say it directly.

[Medievalmaniac]

"For example, I obviously do not think Spivak and Butler are going to be sitting on my dissertation committee, but their presence at Columbia speaks to why I want to go there. They are both hugely informative in my research, so it seems silly to pretend they are not there, but I cannot figure out how to mention them without sounding like a moron. Any ideas?"

I think a simple statement of, "the presence of scholars such as x.y. and z, whose work speaks to what I am doing _______________, is a central reason for my application to this program" would suffice. Make it about you, more than about them. WHY are they a big draw for you? What about their work, specifically, speaks to your desire to work with them - a specific book or article? A class they teach? The specific comment will enhance your application; if you just mention them generally, might as well leave it out.

Also, re: rock stars and dissertations - after a decade of teaching, three year in graduate school and six years on the conference circuit talking to many of the "rock stars" and also many fine, "lesser" professors, one thing I have found to be true is, everyone is an individual, and while some rock stars cannot be bothered with anything so humdrum as advising dissertations and many rock stars however well-intentioned are too busy to really devote time and energy to their graduate students, many others consider the training of the next generation to be their most important responsibility and devote a vast amount of time to the task. And, based on my conversations with several and with their grad students, you would be very surprised at how many of the biggest names and oldest still-serving professors fall under the latter category. Best simply to take a course with the POI and evaluate that for yourself once you are in a program, in my opinion.

[Grunty DaGnome]

The best professor I've had in the MA program hasn't published much of anything since the mid 1990s. There are other, more well-known "rockstar" types on the faculty, [not as well known as Butler, but well known in their respective niches] and they won't really discuss anything with you, not your proposed paper, not the class reading, not even their own work assigned for class. Instead, they give you a line about how a "scholar" needs to learn to work independently --- but leave out that their spouses are in the same or related fields as their groundbreaking work. Yes, they probably never collaborated with anyone to work out their more complicated ideas. Did it all on their own.

[jakebarnes]

I doubt they direct dissertations anymore.

This is a pretty presumptuous statement to make. Butler has chaired 20 dissertations in the past 10 years, and Spivak, while less prolific, has chaired 9. Furthermore, I've heard from quite a few sources that Butler is a highly involved and exceedingly generous advisor—not at all the aloof "rockstar" that some people would like to think she is. Maybe she'll chair fewer dissertation committees at Columbia, (who knows?), but I would not rule her out at all.

All you need to do to figure out whether a prof is actively working with doctoral students is to list them as advisor on a ProQuest search. While some of the "rockstars" don't advise regularly, you'd be surprised at the number of them that do.

[perrykm2]

This IS such a dilemma, isn't it?

I don't have any advice. I'm still working this out for myself.

[ecritdansleau]

Perhaps someone might have a better update on this, but I believe Butler's status at Columbia is that of a 2 year visiting professor (so she's technically not a permanent member of the department yet, but I imagine if she wants to stay they'd be happy to have her?). I can't speak to whether you should name drop or not, but you probably don't want to make it sound like all your eggs are in the Spivak/Butler basket (that is, mention other professors too, if you do mention Spivak an Butler). I think? I think MedievalManiac hits on a key point: don't just name names, explain why/how their work relates to your own in a show (don't just tell) manner.

[ecritdansleau]

AAhh, update.

From the Chronicle:

"Judith Butler, a distinguished figure in feminist theory and literary criticism, will be a visiting professor in Columbia University’s department of English and comparative literature. Ms. Butler, who is currently a professor of rhetoric and comparative literature at the University of California at Berkeley, will be at the the department in a visiting capacity in the spring 2012 and the spring of 2013."

BUT THEN, if you scroll down, a commenter seems to suggest that the Chair of the English Department sent out an e-mail confirming that Butler will be a permanent faculty member after those first two years:

From the Supposed Email:

"I am thrilled to announce that Judith Butler will be joining our department as a regular faculty member. For each of the next two years she will be a full-time visitor in the spring terms. After that she will be here on a permanent year-round basis."

All this information is from here:

http://chronicle.com/blogs/ticker/judith-butler-plans-to-move-from-berkeley-to-columbia-u/28217

[TripWillis]

I bet you a bunch of people who wrote SoPs for Berkeley missed that memo and now look like fools.

I know I would've. Fortunately, I didn't apply there, because I didn't know about this until now.

[Two Espressos]

I bet you a bunch of people who wrote SoPs for Berkeley missed that memo and now look like fools.

I know I would've. Fortunately, I didn't apply there, because I didn't know about this until now.

Yeah, I don't recommend name-dropping in SOPs at all, unless it's to discuss how certain theorists/philosophers inform your research interests or something. A professor-mentor of mine strongly discouraged me from name-dropping at all.

[wintergirl]

I bet you a bunch of people who wrote SoPs for Berkeley missed that memo and now look like fools.

I know I would've. Fortunately, I didn't apply there, because I didn't know about this until now.

Wait. I DID write an SOP for Berkeley. Why exactly do I look like a fool?

FWIW, I didn't mention Butler at all, since she's not one of my POIs.

[TripWillis]

Wait. I DID write an SOP for Berkeley. Why exactly do I look like a fool?

FWIW, I didn't mention Butler at all, since she's not one of my POIs.

You wouldn't look like a fool. People who put Butler in their SoP for Berkeley maybe will get the ax because of an oversight.

[litjust]

How are any of you dealing with your "fit" paragraph when it comes to the presence of academic rockstars at a given university?

I agree with what many people have said regarding name dropping. The best way to do it is how Medieval suggested. Another way you can establish this fit is by illustrating the connection between your research and the research of these rockstars (and other lesser known rock stars) in your SOP. Aim to address questions similar to: How does your work reflect that of faculty at x school? What might you gain from studying with scholars at x school? How are you different than all the other candidates who want to work with the rock stars at x school? So, instead of name dropping you connect your interests to the interests shared by faculty in the division, which can probably go a lot further than mentioning a name. Good luck to you!

[ecritdansleau]

I think what's difficult/controversial about the original question is that ultimately, you are walking a tight-rope whenever you mention a professor's work: if you name drop without explaining, it may seem like a superficial connection; on the other hand, if you try to sum up an aspect of their research, you risk misrepresenting it/sound presumptuous, depending on how familiar you are with it. (I'm not suggesting that most applicants will misrepresent the a rock star scholar's research, but if you describe in a way that seems "off"--and the adcom is the judge of this--there is the risk that this will detract from your application rather than add to it.) But if you do it well, it is a spectacular way to make your app stand out.

Probably the best thing to do in this situation is write it out, and ask one of your own professors if it sounds alright, if it's not too late. Or, only mention professors when you are profoundly familiar with the range of their work, especially recent research.

Edited December 9, 2011 by ecritdansleau

[Sigaba]

To supplement ecritdansleau's post, above, I would point out that another risk of mentioning "rockstars" in one's SOP is that one may not know how a particular department feels about that academic.

If, for example, a department emphasizes its collegiality but one or two prominent faculty members deviate from that concept, the debate could spill over into the admissions process. Applicants who stress they'd fit in because of a department's areas of emphasis might fair better than those who seek to hitch their wagons specific individuals.

[lolopixie]

For every action there is an equal or opposite reaction...that is how I feel about any and all questions asked and actions taken during the application process. I'm hoping for the equal!

[locsofgold]

You wouldn't look like a fool. People who put Butler in their SoP for Berkeley maybe will get the ax because of an oversight.

I mentioned Butler in my Berkeley SOP, but I knew she was leaving so it just mentioned how I became aware of the program because of her.

[vertige]

The thing with academic rockstars is that they're often in rockstar departments, where only rockstar students get admitted, so if you're good enough, you totally get the face time. Having worked with pseudo-rockstars as an undergrad (nothing recognizable, but still *exciting* in the theory circuit): they are absolutely individuals. If you get into the program, you will at the very least get a handful of really good one-on-one meetings as you figure out your research objectives, and when it comes down to it, those conversations (however spare) are the linchpin in a good mentoring experience. Because you can't expect anyone to spend *that* much time on your project. And Butler, I know from having one conversation with her and seeing her interact with students, is incredibly generous and sensitive. Her lectures/seminars are always a bit tenuous/controversial, and she handles it like a yogi. People sometimes yell at her in anger for her positions, and often facilitators will try to hush them, to which she responds "no, please let him/her finish. It's really important that we all express ourselves". In terms of situational dyamics, she is a leader in the field, and formerly hard-brass polemicists like Zizek and Agamben completely take her cue now - it has turned into a love fest.

Long story short: the rockstars themselves are often teddy bears...because they are super well-paid and adored, and have no real reason to be difficult. The attrition is in the admission - say you want to work with someone, there is absolutely no shame in it. But have the awesome credentials and well-researched analyses to back it up. You will do brilliantly.

[andsoitgoes161]

One of my LOR writers is actually a renowned scholar and someone who sits on the Stanford adcomm board, and he told me that applicants who name specific professors they would "like to study under" usually detracts from their apps. "Naming faculty members makes an applicant seem too egocentric in an area of specified study, and usually contradicts said member's actual interests, or else makes them quick to judge supposed fit"--direct quote from him, no joke.

I also agree with sigaba's analysis that "If, for example, a department emphasizes its collegiality but one or two prominent faculty members deviate from that concept, the debate could spill over into the admissions process."

Sorry to be a dick.

Edited January 1, 2012 by andsoitgoes161

[Mr Grimwig]

When I asked for advice on writing my SOPs, my undergrad professors urged me to include names of faculty members who seemed to be a good "fit" for my interests. I felt weird doing it, not only because I realized it could be taken negatively by an adcomm reader out of jealousy or dislike for a colleague or whatever, but because it seemed so fake on my part. I don't know these people; I have at best a glancing familiarity with their work, and most of my knowledge of them came from the sparse info on the programs' webpages. Still, my professors urged me to mention them, saying it would make me look more "like you know what you're talking about" and "serious" about my studies.

Now I wish I had not mentioned specific names, except for a few instances where I was very familiar with the professor's work and could really argue my case about how the prof. had influenced my work, how we could work well together, etc.

I found one such dream scholar at Oxford who would have been perfect for me (his latest book project meshes perfectly with my previous thesis and dissertation proposal ideas), and I crafted a strong Oxford SOP with one whole paragraph largely centered around his presence. At the last minute, I found out he is going to be on leave for the next two or three years and won't be taking on graduate students' projects. Alas! Had I missed that nugget of information, I would have severely damaged my SOP. It makes me wonder if I have messed up elsewhere.

So having been through this process once now, I would advise fellow applicants or future applicants to be very careful about mentioning specific professors. It just relies on too many things to fall together perfectly in order for a specific faculty mention to work well, and it seems entirely too probable that mentioning a professor could hurt you.

[wintergirl]

I mentioned 4-5 different faculty members at each school but phrased it as "these are an example of some of the people at X school whose scholarly interests appear to intersect with mine". I hope that by not saying something that sounds like I ONLY want to come to X program because of XYZ scholar I'll avoid pissing off adcomms like some of you are cautioning.

Sigh. This process is so freaking confusing and riddled with so many contradictions that it seems our hopes of being successful are doomed from the outset. There's a cheery thought for New Year's Day.