A question about references/referees.

[Weepsie]

I was going through the application guidelines for one of the places I am most interested in, and as expected it had a note about needing 3 referees. It did state however that two of them should be from Professors of History.

It is four years since I've complete my MA in History and at the time I only had three lecturers. One of these was not an historian so to speak, and the other was only there for a year. I've not kept in touch either with the other so I would not feel comfortable contacting them. As for my undgergraduate lecturers, a number of them have retired, and I know a number have also gone abroad.

For the past year I have been studying for an MLIS, and all in all it's going rather well. I have already been guaranteed references from a number of lecturers and I expect them to be quite strong too. My problem is none of them are History professors, they are sociologists, information science, and similar. Should I expect this to be a problem, or should the strength of the recommendations be good enough.

I would also be explaining in an SoP that I took a second masters after a number of years for the purpose of applying to a PHD as I wanted better results and to gain some better research skills (which the MLIS really did).

[TMP]

Do any of them have a PhD? Your referees must have a PhD to write a LOR- they can asset your ability to complete the degree.

[Weepsie]

Thanks for the reply. Yes, they all have PhDs. One if a post-doc, one is teaching faculty and the last is a senior member of the department.

Edited August 11, 2012 by Weepsie

[Snewyork]

I have been told by a POI, that they only look at recommendations from Professors. I am in the same boat - it's been a few years out of my MA in history. But the POI told me to just ask the professors for a recommendation.

With that being said. I had another professor tell me that because he didn't know the professors who recommended me he could not tell how much weight to put into the recommendations.

So my understanding is two fold: First, recommendations must be from professors. Second, those professors better be active within the field you are applying to.

This has me worried about my recommendations.

[thedig13]

Not to threadjack, but to what degree does the LOR-writer's field matter? Is an 18th-century Europeanist recommended by a 20th-century Americanist at a disadvantage against one who is recommended by another 18th-century Europeanist?

In that same vein of thinking, which would be better: an LOR from a Visiting Professor in a similar field or an LOR from a tenured Professor in a totally unrelated field?

[TakeruK]

I think the content of the LOR is more important than the reputation of the LOR writer (although this is somewhat important too).

It's much much better to get a glowing LOR from an "average" reputation prof that supervised your work directly than a mediocre letter from a "famous" prof who, due to their fame, has a ton of students and doesn't know you that well.

I think that LORs from someone in your subfield will be helpful since it shows you have made an impact on researchers in your own field, but you probably don't NEED to have more than one in your subfield. As for tenured or not, I think it's more important to consider the experience of the professor. A LOR that states you are the top 5% of hundreds of students encountered in their career is more valuable than a top 1% rating from a prof who have worked with only a handful of students!

[Weepsie]

I could be wrong, but isn't the title of Professor somewhat different in North America than it is in UK & Ireland (I'm in Ireland). Here it is generally reserved for the head, or heads of the department (The history Dept has three or four professors, only one of whom was there when I was), whereas other staff are Dr. ...... It's

[TMP]

OP- No postdoc. Your postdoc is likely to say "no" particularly if s/he's savvy. A postdoc is just a very, very junior colleague and hasn't had much experience in evaluating students on whether or not they can make an "impact" on the field. Also, the postdoc is likely to be more concerned about building on his/her reputation such that it's a liability to write a LOR for a student who might otherwise be actually average (as judged by other LOR writers).

[Weepsie]

The Postdoc has already said yes. Now where as i see where they are in a junior position, the postdoc in question has a better cv than some long serving professors. Their research output is a little bewildering and are fairly highly thought of.

They're are also privy to all my results and as it's a relatively small department, they will have seen other work I've done.

I'm fairly confident that all of my LOR will be good, as my results and efforts this year have been excellent (I can write a substandard thesis and still get first class honours such are the results so far). My supervisor is the head of the school too and is widely regarded as one of the leading minds in their particular field (though again that is not history).

Thanks for all the innput.

I infact got a response from the uni concerned earlier today, and they said it shouldn't be a problem. It's the SOP that I need to worry about mostly with them I think.