How important is it to have 'big name' references?

[Yetanotherdegree]

I know the contents are the most important aspect of a reference. However, how helpful is it to have references from better known faculty members, or from those with more ties to the institution you are applying to?

Just wondering. And maybe scheming a little for a future application...

[Body Politics]

If you can get Miroslav Volf to vouch for you, that'd probably be helpful.   

 

Seriously, though: I think it's important to have established scholars as references (at least one "senior" scholar, two "juniors"). They don't have to be academic celebrities, but if you take a look at their CV and they're well published and active in regional and national conferences, it's likely that they'd be recognizable entities granted that their area(s) of expertise are similar to those of the programs you're applying to. 

 

I am speaking, of course, out of a hopeful optimism for myself. All of my main references are active in their fields, but only one is any sort of household name. I suspect this is true for many of us.

 

I am also hoping that it's helpful for references to have definite connections to programs I'm applying to. 4/5 of my applications are to programs in which faculty POI's are on a first-name basis with at least one of my references.

Edited February 6, 2013 by Body Politics

[uromastyx]

I also believe, that to some extent, it's very beneficial to have a big name in the field.

However, knowledgeable committees are also aware of what kinds of LORs these people write. Perhaps, for example, Professor X always writes glowing letters. In this instance, the 'big name' might not be the best option. But who's to know?

2 of my 4 LORs were from 'big names.' It doesn't get any better if they are respected and can write you a solid letter.

That being said, I'll take glowing, honest letters (from lesser known profs) over a mediocre letter from big names any day of the week.

[11Q13]

one thing you might also consider is that the big name scholars will typically have to rank you in there recommendations. If this big name scholar has had brilliant students for 30 years already, they might be less inclined to say that you are in the top 1% or something like that. 

 

One of my writers was the doctoral adviser of half the people I applied to work with at the various Ivies... so they left that part blank when they could.

[marXian]

I think what is far more important is that a recommender know you and your work very well so that he or she can speak as strongly as possible to your abilities. If that happens to be a big name scholar or someone with ties to a particular institution, then great. But a letter that's weak or vague could completely back fire and destroy your application, especially if it's from a big name or someone with ties to an institution. 

 

When I was getting letters together last year, I was having a really hard time finding a third letter from the pool of faculty at Fuller, since the seminary is so large, you have to take so many courses, etc. After speaking with a number of faculty, I just didn't feel confident that I could get three from Fuller, so I lined up two there that I knew would be solid, and I went outside of the discipline to one of my committee members for my MA in English. He was delighted to write me a recommendation, and I was accepted to two programs. There's certainly a chance that having a non-theology/religion recommendation hurt me with some of my apps, but I think the best bet is always to go with the person who can speak at length about your work and your strengths.

[Lux Lex Pax]

I think a reference from someone they know, respect, and are friends with is probably the most helpful, all things being equal. At least, that was my experience when I applied. I had a letter from someone who wasn't a big name but everyone knew and respected, and I'm absolutely certain his letter opened doors for me because everyone mentioned him and how great he was. But figuring out who is friends with whom and who is respected by people sitting on admissions' committees is the tricky part.

[TriGeek]

I spoke with the director of the Ph.D. at Duke, and he said that it is best to choose professors who can write in great detail about your strengths and what you have accomplished as a scholar.  He said that they see students pick big name faculty who don't know them well and can't write much.  "That is always a mistake!"

 

However, I did include one such faculty member at Duke that I had never even worked with.  I had professors I knew very, very well write my three main recommendations.  About a year and a half ago, I sen't my thesis to a theologian at Duke because a lot of the content was directly based on one of her books.  She read the thesis and sent me an extremely positive response and indicated that she thought I would fit well at Duke. My advisor recommended that I ask her to write me a rec, and she agreed.

 

I mentioned this strategy to a member of the UVa faculty, and he said, "definitely include her reference."

 

Maybe this line of attack will work for you.

[belichick]

I was deciding between requesting a letter from very well-known emeritus professor or from a lesser known, but solid active professor. I decided to go with the emeritus professor, and asked my advisor (harvard) if that was the right choice. She looked puzzled. "Of course. He's famous."

Edited February 6, 2013 by belichick

[Kuriakos]

I've got two famous profs and nothing but a wait list, so it can't be some magic component.

[doobiebrothers]

it def helps for Harvard, as belichick said

[SDG2]

Go after big name references, but only if you've done big time work for them. A bland recommendation from Stanley Hauerwas isn't gonna help much.