Discussing Old Professors in Your Personal Statement?

[Deliberate]

I'm last minute personalizing statements for some schools and have realized that a lot of the professors that I want to display interest in are old (i.e., 70's+).  Is it bad to talk about these professors in my personal statement?  These are NOT emiretus/retired professors (that is, they're still teaching classes and are publishing).

 

Basically, does it make me look stupid to talk about how the works of old professors encouraged me to apply to XYZ university since those professors might not even be taking students?

 

Also, assume it's too late for me to personally inquire to these professors whether or not they are in, in fact, taking students

[Canis]

If you're listing anyone as a POI in your statement, you should have had an email exchange with them where you confirmed that they are actually 1. taking students and 2. interested in your research. Listing professors who aren't taking new students, who plan to be away when you arrive, etc. is listed in the "Kiss of Death" document.

 

Also, you probably want to think long and hard about signing up to work with someone who is very old or toward the end of their career. They're not going to help you make the kinds of connections that a graduate education is all about - and to be blunt, they could pass away. That sounds crazy, but I'll tell you that even middle-aged profs are dropping like flies at my program.

 

It's never too late to reach out to someone and say: here's what I'm interested in studying, would you be interested in a project like that?

[MattDest]

If you're listing anyone as a POI in your statement, you should have had an email exchange with them where you confirmed that they are actually 1. taking students and 2. interested in your research. Listing professors who aren't taking new students, who plan to be away when you arrive, etc. is listed in the "Kiss of Death" document.

 

Also, you probably want to think long and hard about signing up to work with someone who is very old or toward the end of their career. They're not going to help you make the kinds of connections that a graduate education is all about - and to be blunt, they could pass away. That sounds crazy, but I'll tell you that even middle-aged profs are dropping like flies at my program.

 

It's never too late to reach out to someone and say: here's what I'm interested in studying, would you be interested in a project like that?

 

I don't think listing someone who is not taking students is a "Kiss of Death" (?) in philosophy, as it might be in the sciences or disciplines that are more "project" oriented. If the department you are applying to is strong in that area, and one professor in particular influenced your decision to apply there - I see no harm in mentioning it so long as it doesn't come off as "I'd like to go here if and only if Professor X is my advisor." 

 

That said, I think it's probably in your best interest to mention people who are active in taking students and are possible advisors for you rather than people who may be on their way out of advising. 

[bar_scene_gambler]

Honestly, the only time I dropped names was if I had already spoken with said professor or in situations where I said, "program X has many great scholars working on philosopher/theme Y, including blah blah blah". Keep it simple, keep it safe.

[Canis]

Kiss of Death: http://psychology.unl.edu/psichi/Graduate_School_Application_Kisses_of_Death.pdf

 

Agreed, parts of the POI approach are very field specific. However, in my search for POIs, I found many professors who were listed on the department sites were away for the next two years as fellows at another school, or were going to start their sabbatical next fall, etc. All kinds of reasons that listing them on your statement would show that you never talked to them and would come across as uninformed in admissions. So, as long as you know they're going to be around... But the thing is, if you email with them, and you tell them you're applying for next semester - they would tell you if they're not going to be around.

[MattDest]

Kiss of Death: http://psychology.unl.edu/psichi/Graduate_School_Application_Kisses_of_Death.pdf

 

Agreed, parts of the POI approach are very field specific. However, in my search for POIs, I found many professors who were listed on the department sites were away for the next two years as fellows at another school, or were going to start their sabbatical next fall, etc. All kinds of reasons that listing them on your statement would show that you never talked to them and would come across as uninformed in admissions. So, as long as you know they're going to be around... But the thing is, if you email with them, and you tell them you're applying for next semester - they would tell you if they're not going to be around.

 

This study is about psychology graduate admissions. Psychology admissions are completely different beasts than philosophy admissions. Psychology is incredibly project-dependent, as often psych students are joining labs or working with a specific professor on a very narrow topic (notice the phrase "is crucial for both the professor and student to gain..."). In philosophy, the only analogue might be that you grossly mistake a program's strengths and/or what a professor specifically researches. 

 

ETA: This, of course, will still be a KOD: “students note that they wish to work with a specific faculty member who has retired,died, or relocated.” Haha, WTF? 

Edited December 31, 2013 by MattDest

[Canis]

Side note: MattDest are you really applying to 21 schools? Your LOR referees must be SAINTS.

 

Absolutely true that the KOD document was a study of psych. But much of Psych, along with social science is much more like humanities or philosophy in terms of the student advisor relationship than it is like biology, chemistry, etc which have lab associations, etc.

 

Also, the KODs listed in that document may not have derived from non-psychology departments, but it would be difficult to argue that any of those actions would help an application to any department in any field. So, in that sense, I suggest they are applicable.

[MattDest]

Side note: MattDest are you really applying to 21 schools? Your LOR referees must be SAINTS.

 

Absolutely true that the KOD document was a study of psych. But much of Psych, along with social science is much more like humanities or philosophy in terms of the student advisor relationship than it is like biology, chemistry, etc which have lab associations, etc.

 

Also, the KODs listed in that document may not have derived from non-psychology departments, but it would be difficult to argue that any of those actions would help an application to any department in any field. So, in that sense, I suggest they are applicable.

 

I am. All four of my LORs said that I should apply to as many as I can afford, so they dug their own grave.   (They are saints!)

 

I agree that none of those mistakes are actually going to help, but I wanted to point out that the risks one might take in identifying specific professors in psychology are not the same risks one would take if they were to do it for philosophy. Your original claim was that if you list a professor in your SOP, you should have had an e-mail exchange with them that they are "1. taking students and 2. interested in your research", but I don't think that this approach is very cost effective (or necessary) for philosophy. Interests are too broad ("Philosophy of Mind" covers a ton of topics), and it's not the same sort of research environment that one has in psychology. 

[Canis]

That is great that your LOR refs support you in that way! I'm surprised at the encouragement to apply to so many schools, what was the reasoning behind that? Based on your area of focus I wonder if you're interested in Prinz's work at CUNY?

 

Although I was a philosophy degree student in my prior program and am not applying for PhD's in that discipline now - I've actually worked with folks in the philosophy department at CUNY and know students in that dept. So I can only really speak to that situation.

 

My own experience with philosophy profs is that they approach applications like those in every discipline. They want someone they're excited about having a collegial relationship with for many years. 

 

They are also in a position to make or break the application by saying "I want to work with that person" or "I can't see myself working with that person." They're a lot more likely to say they'll work with a student if they've actually heard from the student, talked to them and are excited not only by their work but by the evidence that they're really interested in the program.

 

Programs everywhere want students who have chosen the department after extensive research because it's the perfect fit for that student. They want students who are engaged in the kind of work that the faculty and existing cohort are doing - they want someone to join that community.

 

My impression is that the most unique characteristics of philosophy admissions are the attention paid to the writing sample, and the focus on coursework in the early years. But if it's become a trend not to talk to POIs, I'm very interested to learn about this. (I'm an older student, so new trends could have passed me by!)

[Canis]

And Deliberate: I should just sum up my advice as: Yes, mention professors you're interested in, as long as you know they're going to be around - and as long as you're actually familiar enough with their work to talk about it in a way that will reflect that familiarity... I'll leave the reaching out to POIs in certain ways/or not issue up to those with more experience applying to programs today.

[Table]

Absolutely true that the KOD document was a study of psych. But much of Psych, along with social science is much more like humanities or philosophy in terms of the student advisor relationship than it is like biology, chemistry, etc which have lab associations, etc.

 

To move this away from speculation about how similar expectations in various fields are: I spoke with two professors at my school that are regularly on its admissions committee about this. Both indicated they did not think it was particularly important to email people whose work you mention you are interested in it. And there are definitely times when it is genuinely too late to do it, ex. the night before the deadline.

 

Deliberate, I would try to not mention only older professors (really probably not more than one per school). And I would frame it as "I am especially interested in X's work in Y" instead of "I want X to be my advisor."  

[Canis]

To move this away from speculation about how similar expectations in various fields are: I spoke with two professors at my school that are regularly on its admissions committee about this. Both indicated they did not think it was particularly important to email people whose work you mention you are interested in it. And there are definitely times when it is genuinely too late to do it, ex. the night before the deadline.

 

Deliberate, I would try to not mention only older professors (really probably not more than one per school). And I would frame it as "I am especially interested in X's work in Y" instead of "I want X to be my advisor."  

 

Don't get me wrong, I agree fields are vastly different. Philosophy is much more competitive than just about any other I've seen - and adcoms take LORs very seriously, unlike others. The writing sample is also more important than almost anything else. These things certainly set the field apart. I'm interested to learn that the POI approach also sets the field apart these days. Something that was less true in the past - perhaps because it was such a 'old boys' club'?

[maxhgns]

I'm a bit late to the party, but one thing worth mentioning in addition to what's been said is that this is one of the ways in which "fit" gets determined. Profs within a PhD cycle of retiring don't usually take on new students, and that can cause fit problems if their replacements aren't already hired. It's the same problem if particular supervisors are overloaded with students.

 

If, e.g., you were applying to a school for phil. of art/aesthetics and that school had one or two amazing faculty in the subfield (you almost never get more than 2 in a NA department) and one or both were near retirement, those would be good reasons for the admissions committee to decline your application. It doesn't mean you weren't good enough or whatever, just that there was no room for you this cycle.

 

So there's no harm in displaying interest in those profs. But be aware that they may no longer be taking students (or may die and so on). If you put all your eggs in that one basket, you may be asking for trouble. What you want is to be the kind of student that can adapt to that kind of roadblock: you want to be in a department that will be able to help you (and still advise you) if that kind of stuff happens.