POIs for the LOR

[newenglandshawn]

I know there has been some debate about the merits of mentioning specific faculty in your PhD Letters of Recommendation. I am pretty convinced of the wisdom in doing this.

 

However, I am facing a dilemma: in every school to which I'll be applying there is a faculty member with whom I really want to study. I would say they are "home run" interests. But here's the problem: by and large, I cannot find a single other faculty member at these same institutions that seem to have a strong intersection with my research interests - certainly not in a way that would indicate a strong connection to the areas I'm looking to do research in.

 

So how should I proceed?

 

It's not a question of whether I'm going to apply to these schools; I am. My question is whether I should mention only the single faculty member in my LOR, or whether I should try to come up with something - anything - from another faculty member or two that might be helpful in my research, or if I should just avoid mentioning any faculty members altogether?

[Rabbit Run]

Are you asking about your Statement of Purpose or what your recommenders will say in their letters of recommendation for you?

 

For your statement of purpose I'd say definitely mention the specific faculty that are "home run" as well as a couple more that are maybe less related so that you can show a particular as well as a general "fit." I mean, you're gonna have to have a dissertation committee with an advisor (the home run) and then other faculty, so you might as well show this.

 

As for the letters of recommendation, let your recommenders know why you're applying to each program, which will probably include said faculty. As far as what they actually write for you, well thats up to them.

[newenglandshawn]

Are you asking about your Statement of Purpose or what your recommenders will say in their letters of recommendation for you?

 

For your statement of purpose I'd say definitely mention the specific faculty that are "home run" as well as a couple more that are maybe less related so that you can show a particular as well as a general "fit." I mean, you're gonna have to have a dissertation committee with an advisor (the home run) and then other faculty, so you might as well show this.

 

As for the letters of recommendation, let your recommenders know why you're applying to each program, which will probably include said faculty. As far as what they actually write for you, well thats up to them.

 

Oops! I'm totally mixing up my acronyms. Yes, I meant for the Statements of Purpose, not the Letters of Recommendation.

 

Thanks for the feedback, though! So are you saying that even if my mentioning a secondary faculty amounts to little more than what one could read about their research interests on their website profile, that I should still mention this (e.g., "I'm interested in studying with Professor X because of the way she utilizes a canonical approach to the Old Testament")?

 

Thanks again!

[marXian]

Absolutely mention the "home run" faculty as well as other faculty whose work you think is interesting who you could see offering something unique to your work and potentially sitting on your dissertation committee. Though you don't have to say anything about an actual committee. Adcoms realize you're proposing neither a dissertation committee nor your actual dissertation in the SOP. Also remember that fit between faculty and those they advise is never air tight (nor should it be, I think.) Dissertation committees are not made up of five experts on your very narrow slice of an already narrow field. Who you end up actually working with in the end is going to depend a lot on what sorts of things you want to make absolutely sure you get right in the dissertation. That will likely include people who are only tangentially related to what you do because they can bring a fresh perspective to your work.

 

Thankfully, you don't need to worry about any of that now! So don't stress if faculty in your SOP don't line up precisely with your proposed plan, which might change a bit anyway once you're actually in.

Edited October 1, 2014 by marXian

[newenglandshawn]

Absolutely mention the "home run" faculty as well as other faculty whose work you think is interesting who you could see offering something unique to your work and potentially sitting on your dissertation committee. Though you don't have to say anything about an actual committee. Adcoms realize you're proposing neither a dissertation committee nor your actual dissertation in the SOP. Also remember that fit between faculty and those they advise is never air tight (nor should it be, I think.) Dissertation committees are not made up of five experts on your very narrow slice of an already narrow field. Who you end up actually working with in the end is going to depend a lot on what sorts of things you want to make absolutely sure you get right in the dissertation. That will likely include people who are only tangentially related to what you do because they can bring a fresh perspective to your work.

 

Thankfully, you don't need to worry about any of that now! So don't stress if faculty in your SOP don't line up precisely with your proposed plan, which might change a bit anyway once you're actually in.

 

Thanks for this! Part of my question was how I should discuss secondary faculty whose research interests very loosely connect with mine. In other words, if I say that I am interested in studying the theology of pre-monarchic Israel, wouldn't it look strange if I write that I'm interested in Professor X's work on Second Temple Judaism (even if I do have a modest interest in it, despite its strained connection with my primary research interests)? Will an Admissions Committee think to themselves, "This guy is all over the place?" or is it acceptable to mention the work of specific faculty, even if I do not make any explicit connection to my primary research interests?

[marXian]

A committee will think you're all over the place if it sounds like you're saying "Well I could do this or I could this because this guy is interesting too!" rather than "I want to do A and work with X because her work does a, b, c. Furthermore Y's methodological approach to e, f, g would help me in clarifying A because blah, blah, blah." See the difference?

 

I'll use my SOP for the school I'm now attending as an example (though I'm now doing something only tangentially related to this.) I wrote that I was interested in the epistemologies of biblical hermeneutics and what is at work during the transition from one epistemology to another. I was especially in the transitions between dominant, independent movements in contemporary Christianity (i.e. Free Church movement to the Emergent Church.) My SOP was directed at a theologian in the department interested in biblical hermeneutics and philosophy of religion. But I also mentioned an American religious history expert whom I knew was supervising a project on American evangelicalism and who also had strong interests in theory and method. I then used the above formula to construct something that included both of them. 

Edited October 1, 2014 by marXian

[newenglandshawn]

Thanks again marXian! I am sending you a DM with a little more detail about my specific interests.

[AbrasaxEos]

MarXian's point is important here.  Your research interests shouldn't stop at a specific book of the HB, or even a period of interest.  You have this element, and it is probably the most important for your statement, and it is great that you have identified strong faculty who share this particular interest.  However, you should also consider the method by which you plan on studying this period, or these texts.  Do you envision doing mostly philological work, or does the ANE context interest you as well? Archaeology, epigraphy, comparative linguistics, critical theory, etc.?  You can use these methodological interests to work other faculty in to your statement in a organic way.  Whereas the faculty in 2nd Temple may not be in your topical wheelhouse, might s/he be helpful as someone who support your work from a methodological angle, for example, by sharpening your comparative linguistic abilities between the material in the period your are most interested in and his own surely connected period?  These are just conceptualizations to help you think through what you might write, not rules.

[newenglandshawn]

MarXian's point is important here.  Your research interests shouldn't stop at a specific book of the HB, or even a period of interest.  You have this element, and it is probably the most important for your statement, and it is great that you have identified strong faculty who share this particular interest.  However, you should also consider the method by which you plan on studying this period, or these texts.  Do you envision doing mostly philological work, or does the ANE context interest you as well? Archaeology, epigraphy, comparative linguistics, critical theory, etc.?  You can use these methodological interests to work other faculty in to your statement in a organic way.  Whereas the faculty in 2nd Temple may not be in your topical wheelhouse, might s/he be helpful as someone who support your work from a methodological angle, for example, by sharpening your comparative linguistic abilities between the material in the period your are most interested in and his own surely connected period?  These are just conceptualizations to help you think through what you might write, not rules.

 

Excellent! Thanks. That's very helpful. If it's simply a matter of methodology (or at least part of it), I can certainly indicate how the methodology of secondary professors aligns with my own interests.

 

Thanks again!