The "fit" question

[sillyrabbit]

Throughout the application process, I've probably thought about the "fit" question a lot. Of course, most of the PhD programs that I applied to are great fits for me. I take this to mean that I can see myself working closely, based on my preliminary research, with at least 3 professors (stating this in my SoP). In general, I see these school's intellectual priorities aligning with mine.

 

I also applied to a *few* schools that were somewhat wildcards. Overall, these wildcard schools are very highly ranked, and I've heard great things about the programs as a whole. But, they don't explicitly have a ton of faculty who have been researching in my fields of interest for a long time. There are a few recent hires in these programs that suggest that they are looking to expand into my areas of interest, so I thought, hey, perhaps they are looking to expand/strengthen these areas (and *perhaps* take a few grad students to boost...)

 

I'm wondering if anyone else thought along these lines during the application process. Could a few recent faculty hires indicate a potential good fit, in the eyes of the admission council, based on where the program would like to see itself evolving in the next 5-10 years? Any insight?

 

P.S. I guess this would have been a great question to ask POIs/DGSs/current grad students BEFORE I applied...but alas...I did not. :/ We'll find out soon enough anyway!

[snyegurachka]

I have been going through a similar process, though mostly retr/ospectively. At the time, it seemed like the literature programs I was applying to would be really great for me because there were faculty whose work I really like and that had appealing courses, etc. Now I am realizing that my project probably isn't as appealing for lit programs as it could be for more interdisciplinary/cultural studies types of programs. Only two of the five I applied to this year fit into that category—MTL at Stanford and Rhetoric at Berkeley—so I am starting to get pretty antsy because they are such competitive programs. But then at the same time, I am starting to feel more confident in myself as an applicant at those schools than the one or two less competitive (but still top) programs in literature.

 

[sillyrabbit]

I have been going through a similar process, though mostly retr/ospectively. At the time, it seemed like the literature programs I was applying to would be really great for me because there were faculty whose work I really like and that had appealing courses, etc. Now I am realizing that my project probably isn't as appealing for lit programs as it could be for more interdisciplinary/cultural studies types of programs. Only two of the five I applied to this year fit into that category—MTL at Stanford and Rhetoric at Berkeley—so I am starting to get pretty antsy because they are such competitive programs. But then at the same time, I am starting to feel more confident in myself as an applicant at those schools than the one or two less competitive (but still top) programs in literature.

 

 

Great to hear that there is another MTL hopeful! I think there were only 3 (including me) in these forums ...now there's 4!

 

I imagine the literature programs you applied to are also very comfortable (and supportive) of interdisciplinary work...would you mind me asking what programs these are?

[snyegurachka]

Great to hear that there is another MTL hopeful! I think there were only 3 (including me) in these forums ...now there's 4!

 

I imagine the literature programs you applied to are also very comfortable (and supportive) of interdisciplinary work...would you mind me asking what programs these are?

 

 

I think I may have been the third...so still 3?

I applied to comp lit at Brown and Emory, and English at U of C. With Brown, the program sounded really good and the east coast location is appealing. Emory and Chicago have scholars I was psyched about working with and figured that could mean good fit. I was pretty set on applying to the programs in English and Cultural Studies at University of Pittsburgh and Literature at Duke, but neither offer fee waivers

 

Unfortunately, I think that my current work/the work I want to continue just doesn't fit very well into a traditional literary studies setting. I could potentially do my work in an American Studies department, but then what would happen when I moved my focus away from the US later in my career? My interest with the literature discipline has a lot to do with what I know the teaching work is like—I would rather teach a million FYS lit classes than one feminist theory seminar or art history survey course. My methodologies reflect this, but the research/writing I do is pretty far out for traditional lit programs. One of my advisors warned me that what professors do (in terms of being interdisciplinary and/or experimental) and what they sanction their graduate students to do are often different things :/

 

So here goes holding out for two ridiculously unattainable "dream programs."

Edited January 29, 2015 by snyegurachka

[jhefflol]

Oh my god I must have spent at least 20+ hours researching fit alone. I seriously started looking last spring in May and kept researching over the summer. The problem (?) with being an early modernist is that every school has some kind of representation of the early modern. I ended up with a list of 27 schools that would be a great fit for what I want to do. I then narrowed it down to how well-funded each early modern program seemed to be: I looked for colloquia, special collections, library and consortium affiliations (most of the programs I applied to ended up being in the BLC), visiting faculty and special presentations, and current faculty research projects. I ended up with a list of 20 that, with the help of one of my recommenders (we talked about job placement and opportunities in relation to different schools), was eventually reduced down to 15.

 

The only one I'm a bit skeptical about is Washington State in the Tri Cities area. Looking back on the school's website, I'm puzzled how that program made the cut. I'm not even particularly keen on Washington. I guess we'll see what happens with that one!

 

Advice for future cohorts: start the "fit" research early! I must have half a dozen spreadsheets dealing with schools and the "fit" question.

[NowMoreSerious]

For me, there was a big difference between where I thought I was the best fit, and apparently whether ad committees thought I was the best fit.  Some of the schools I thought I was a perfect fit for rejected me.  Of course, I don't know if that's because they thought I wasn't a great fit, or because there were just 8-10 people applying there who they thought were just better than me for their program.  

 

What I have heard though, it that admin committees are looking for what they perceive to be overall potential for literary scholarship.  Even if you aren't a particularly great fit for their specific faculty, they will take you if they just think you will thrive in their program. 

 

Another aspect is this:  Right now I am in my 2nd year and I have just put together my Part I Exam committee. NONE of the professors I mentioned in my UCLA SOP are in that committee.  

Edited January 29, 2015 by NowMoreSerious

[NowMoreSerious]

Oh my god I must have spent at least 20+ hours researching fit alone. I seriously started looking last spring in May and kept researching over the summer. The problem (?) with being an early modernist is that every school has some kind of representation of the early modern. I ended up with a list of 27 schools that would be a great fit for what I want to do. I then narrowed it down to how well-funded each early modern program seemed to be: I looked for colloquia, special collections, library and consortium affiliations (most of the programs I applied to ended up being in the BLC), visiting faculty and special presentations, and current faculty research projects. I ended up with a list of 20 that, with the help of one of my recommenders (we talked about job placement and opportunities in relation to different schools), was eventually reduced down to 15.

 

The only one I'm a bit skeptical about is Washington State in the Tri Cities area. Looking back on the school's website, I'm puzzled how that program made the cut. I'm not even particularly keen on Washington. I guess we'll see what happens with that one!

 

Advice for future cohorts: start the "fit" research early! I must have half a dozen spreadsheets dealing with schools and the "fit" question.

 

Did you apply to UCLA?

[jhefflol]

Did you apply to UCLA?

No, unfortunately. It was one of the programs I got rid of when I decided that I really wanted to get out of California. I only applied to USC and UCI.

Edited January 29, 2015 by jhefflol

[NowMoreSerious]

No, unfortunately. It was one of the programs I got rid of when I decided that I really wanted to get out of California. I only applied to USC and UCI.

 

 To a fellow CSU'er (LA for me), good luck this season!

[jhefflol]

 To a fellow CSU'er (LA for me), good luck this season!

Thank you! 

[Katla]

My process was about the same as yours sillyrabbit, including adding one or two potential wildcards.

I didn't contact any of the universities prior to applying so I was heavily reliant on the departments' stated goals in their about sections and elsewhere and the research areas of their faculty -I think the theoretical/methodological interest was sometimes more important to me than an exact match literaturewise provided they had someone else working in my literatures. Due to my Comp Lit'ness I also looked at other departments that I saw myself working within and the kind of research centres and other resources which were available... I think something which also weighed heavily with me was the research fields of current graduates when available on the website because it gave me an impression of what kind of research was encouraged and I think also gives you an idea about how your own research will fit within that community.

[kurayamino]

I had a hard time with fit, but I did a lot of research to find potential professors whose interests I could at least see meshing well with what I want to do. I applied to 10 programs that I felt had sufficient faculty whose interests worked with mine and then two wild card schools as a sort of "hail mary".

 

I like what NowMoreSerious said about how adcomm's don't just take "fit" into account, but look at potential for growth. This makes me feel relieved in some ways because I work in the niche field of masculinity studies in a shrinking pool of eighteenth century scholarship.

[unræd]

I took a pretty similar approach, sillyrabbit, and feel fairly ambivalent about the whole notion of "fit." One caveat is that since I'll be doing Old English, it's a very restricted field--most programs have only two Anglo-Saxonists at the most, so all my advisors said that it was far less important to find someone who did the exact same sort of work I want to do (in terms of issues, texts, and to a lesser extent, methodology) than someone who would be open to/able to supervise the sort of work I want to do. 

 

Like you, I applied to some programs where I think there's a really strong sense of fit between my interests and those of the Anglo-Saxonists on faculty; a few others were based more on the general strength of the program or direction they might be going in. I've heard back from two programs thus far, from each of the far ends of that spectrum--an acceptance from a school that I think is one of the absolute best "fits" on my list, and an interview request from a school which I applied to for more general reasons (the SOP I sent them wasn't really tailored to them at all, and didn't mention a single prof by name). The interview might well not become an acceptance (and in part because of fit, no doubt!), but you can certainly make it to a short list/not get rejected on spec with a more general approach.

[jazzyd]

The only real conclusion about fit that we've really been able to come to on these boards, from either side of the admissions process, is that it's an amorphous concept that -- however relevant it may be in terms of offers extended -- cannot be precisely ascertained from the outside. You never know how well your "fit" is with a department until you are in the thick of it. Of course, to reach this point you have to have applied to said program and be judged by adcomms as possessing a good enough fit to be accepted into the fold in the first place!

 

Fit is an area where I would guess current MA students, particularly those who have been active in the field (attending conferences, writing grad-level papers), have a leg up. Current professors can be a huge resource here; and whatever weight we might attribute to the mentorship of a 'famous' senior faculty member, this is where junior level faculty are perhaps better equipped to advise.

 

Tbh, I did not get too hung up on fit as far as selecting schools. I took to heart the recommendations of two then-junior faculty members who knew my research interests and knew what kinds of departments had people doing good work in that area. At the end of the day, you have to build the project and write the diss, not your committee. Hence I find it an odd complaint to say "nobody does what I do." The idea isn't to work with people whose interests are so in sync that your thoughts and ideas are one (as a student that would make one rather superfluous, yes? the faculty member already has the job, after all).... the idea is to find scholars who can make meaningful contributions to your research and guide the realization of your project. "Fit" is more about making your project/interests legible to a committee who needs to imagine you succeeding in their department. 

Edited January 29, 2015 by jazzyd

[Ramus]

I didn't contact any of the universities prior to applying so I was heavily reliant on the departments' stated goals in their about sections and elsewhere and the research areas of their faculty -I think the theoretical/methodological interest was sometimes more important to me than an exact match literaturewise provided they had someone else working in my literatures. 

 

I was a bit skeptical of taking the info on various program websites at face value. Every program, for example, has a statement about how interdisciplinary they are, even if its faculty do not regularly employ interdisciplinary methodologies. And the other thing you have to worry about is professors not updating their faculty pages regularly. In my own program, the lone medievalist's faculty page states psychoanalysis as an interest, but she's said in class that she's grown tired of that theoretical approach and hasn't published anything Freudian in a number of years now. This is problematic for us applicants, of course, if we only look at faculty pages. I know in my own research, I was a little down on NYU at first, only to find that one of their early modernists has recently (in the last year) published on the exact subject that I'm interested in. More than faculty/program pages, I've found the MLA bibliography immensely helpful in determining what professors are working on now.

[snyegurachka]

I was a bit skeptical of taking the info on various program websites at face value. Every program, for example, has a statement about how interdisciplinary they are, even if its faculty do not regularly employ interdisciplinary methodologies. And the other thing you have to worry about is professors not updating their faculty pages regularly. In my own program, the lone medievalist's faculty page states psychoanalysis as an interest, but she's said in class that she's grown tired of that theoretical approach and hasn't published anything Freudian in a number of years now. This is problematic for us applicants, of course, if we only look at faculty pages. I know in my own research, I was a little down on NYU at first, only to find that one of their early modernists has recently (in the last year) published on the exact subject that I'm interested in. More than faculty/program pages, I've found the MLA bibliography immensely helpful in determining what professors are working on now.

 

 

yes—I was advised to look up faculty members' most recent work and make sure they were still working on things related to my interests. I had a meeting with a professor at Brown that was super awkward because he didn't seem to understand my interest in his work based on the program to which I was applying. Part of this was that his focus has changed and moved away from mine, but my biggest draw to his work were the methodologies/aesthetics of it. I guess scholars are generally not so enthused about such criteria.

[Katla]

I was a bit skeptical of taking the info on various program websites at face value. Every program, for example, has a statement about how interdisciplinary they are, even if its faculty do not regularly employ interdisciplinary methodologies. And the other thing you have to worry about is professors not updating their faculty pages regularly. In my own program, the lone medievalist's faculty page states psychoanalysis as an interest, but she's said in class that she's grown tired of that theoretical approach and hasn't published anything Freudian in a number of years now. This is problematic for us applicants, of course, if we only look at faculty pages. I know in my own research, I was a little down on NYU at first, only to find that one of their early modernists has recently (in the last year) published on the exact subject that I'm interested in. More than faculty/program pages, I've found the MLA bibliography immensely helpful in determining what professors are working on now.

 

Oh, definitely, I don't think  the about section works on its own, but in conjunction with the department's faculty and, I think perhaps especially, the research of current graduates I think one can guess whether a place is likely to be interdisciplinary (or something else) or not... and I agree, one should definitely consider checking faculty's publications elsewhere

 

 

Tbh, I did not get too hung up on fit as far as selecting schools. I took to heart the recommendations of two then-junior faculty members who knew my research interests and knew what kinds of departments had people doing good work in that area. At the end of the day, you have to build the project and write the diss, not your committee. Hence I find it an odd complaint to say "nobody does what I do." The idea isn't to work with people whose interests are so in sync that your thoughts and ideas are one (as a student that would make one rather superfluous, yes? the faculty member already has the job, after all).... the idea is to find scholars who can make meaningful contributions to your research and guide the realization of your project. "Fit" is more about making your project/interests legible to a committee who needs to imagine you succeeding in their department. 

This is so true...

[doc1]

Oh, definitely, I don't think  the about section works on its own, but in conjunction with the department's faculty and, I think perhaps especially, the research of current graduates I think one can guess whether a place is likely to be interdisciplinary (or something else) or not... and I agree, one should definitely consider checking faculty's publications elsewhere

 

As Katla has brought up research of current grad students, did anyone else make an effort to seriously check that out for schools of interest? I don't know how reliable those pages are (or how updated they are), but part of my own process for figuring out the fit did definitely involve seeing if any current graduate students had similar interests to me. In some situations, I was actually really surprised at the number of people studying in a particular area in comparison to the stated faculty interests on department websites (so obviously I agree with everyone saying to look elsewhere for current research  ). 

 

Edited to add: Feel free to say this isn't a good way to go about determining fit, I'm genuinely interested in how much others might have taken this into account (if at all!). Also, I've already applied so I can't really take anything back at this point  . 

Edited January 29, 2015 by doc1

[Ramus]

As Katla has brought up research of current grad students, did anyone else make an effort to seriously check that out for schools of interest? I don't know how reliable those pages are (or how updated they are), but part of my own process for figuring out the fit did definitely involve seeing if any current graduate students had similar interests to me. In some situations, I was actually really surprised at the number of people studying in a particular area in comparison to the stated faculty interests on department websites (so obviously I agree with everyone saying to look elsewhere for current research  ). 

 

Edited to add: Feel free to say this isn't a good way to go about determining fit, I'm genuinely interested in how much others might have taken this into account (if at all!). Also, I've already applied so I can't really take anything back at this point  . 

 

I tried for a couple of schools, but most programs' graduate student pages are a little spotty, with interests being either absent or a little vague. But I do think it's something important to think about. Frankly, this may be just as important, if not more so, than the interests of faculty members, especially at top tier schools. At those programs, the faculty are going to be stellar and capable of supervising / advising your work even if your interests lie beyond theirs. Your interaction with other graduate students -- and this is difficult to predict based on student webpages -- will likely have a greater effect on your everyday happiness within a program.

[1Q84]

I tried for a couple of schools, but most programs' graduate student pages are a little spotty, with interests being either absent or a little vague. But I do think it's something important to think about. Frankly, this may be just as important, if not more so, than the interests of faculty members, especially at top tier schools. At those programs, the faculty are going to be stellar and capable of supervising / advising your work even if your interests lie beyond theirs. Your interaction with other graduate students -- and this is difficult to predict based on student webpages -- will likely have a greater effect on your everyday happiness within a program.

 

On this note, I found it really helpful to actually contact POI and ask them about their interests and tell them about mine. I know this is a perennial question around here ("Does one need to contact POI before applying?") with various responses but I would highly suggest it.

 

Quite a few early modernists I contacted ended up saying "Well, I don't really work on Milton anymore..." even famous Miltonists like JG Turner told me he's "moved on," so it wouldn't make much sense to name him in my SOP. Another thing I noticed are POIs listed as Shakespeareans, in conversation said that they were just beginning to get interested in Milton again, so it was great for me to know that and be able to discuss that interest on my SOP.

 

Edit: I should mention this endeavor was quite laborious... in the end I had phone conversations with 15 POIs across 9 schools. It was a scheduling feat on my part and there were a lot of thank you cards to write afterwards! I don't know how much this actually affected my application changes (I'm guessing very little) but I wanted to put effort into every controllable moving part on my side that I could.

Edited January 29, 2015 by 1Q84

[mikers86]

Loosely related to fit - but since someone mentioned graduate student profiles - if listed, see what programs current graduate students are coming from. I know I said it previously before apps were due, but some places, such as a university in Boston, select PhD applicants from their MA program - almost exclusively. It's not super common, but it's always stuck out in my mind (likely since I paid that application fee BEFORE noticing that pattern).

[Dr. Old Bill]

As Katla has brought up research of current grad students, did anyone else make an effort to seriously check that out for schools of interest? I don't know how reliable those pages are (or how updated they are), but part of my own process for figuring out the fit did definitely involve seeing if any current graduate students had similar interests to me. In some situations, I was actually really surprised at the number of people studying in a particular area in comparison to the stated faculty interests on department websites (so obviously I agree with everyone saying to look elsewhere for current research  ).

 

Yes! I most certainly did. I personally found it to be an important step. I also reached out to some grad students at a few top programs to find out about professor loads and a bunch of other things as well.

[hreaðemus]

I'm embarrassed to admit this, but I barely looked at the question of "fit" at ALL when applying to my schools. Instead, I asked my favorite professor for her recommendations - I figured that whatever she held in high esteem would be beneficial to me. Of course, if I stay at my alma mater I'll be working directly under her, so I know the fit HERE would be amazing. But otherwise I just put together the best application I could, and figured the schools would either want me or they wouldn't.

 

My personal opinion - and this is not to undermine the hard work you've all put into this aspect of applications, clearly it's working for y'all - is that "fit" is difficult to determine from far away; it's an ephemeral concoction of personalities, location, luck, and skill, and all of that is hard to assess in advance of experiencing the university and department first-hand. So I figure, if I get in anywhere, I'll just go visit!

[doc1]

Loosely related to fit - but since someone mentioned graduate student profiles - if listed, see what programs current graduate students are coming from. I know I said it previously before apps were due, but some places, such as a university in Boston, select PhD applicants from their MA program - almost exclusively. It's not super common, but it's always stuck out in my mind (likely since I paid that application fee BEFORE noticing that pattern).

 

I think that's a great suggestion, Mikers86. I was definitely warned off of a few programs just by seeing where grad students got previous degrees (and seeing that I didn't appear to fit with those they usually accept). It can also give some clue into other programs to look into as well--beneficial all around!

 

 

I'm embarrassed to admit this, but I barely looked at the question of "fit" at ALL when applying to my schools. Instead, I asked my favorite professor for her recommendations - I figured that whatever she held in high esteem would be beneficial to me. 

 

I don't think you should be embarrassed by this, it's obviously a great way to go about the application process. She knows your work and presumably has your best interests in mind.

 

One of my mentor profs actually recommended that I apply to larger programs, in general, due to the availability of different options within a larger institution that might present themselves. So outside of "fit," I did let her advice guide a few of my choices and I ended up applying to a couple of programs where my research interests seemed to have a place in the department, but not a strong one. We'll see how that works out for me!

[Dr. Old Bill]

One of my mentor profs actually recommended that I apply to larger programs, in general, due to the availability of different options within a larger institution that might present themselves. So outside of "fit," I did let her advice guide a few of my choices and I ended up applying to a couple of programs where my research interests seemed to have a place in the department, but not a strong one. We'll see how that works out for me!

 

That's an interesting point. One of my mentor / advisor / LOR-writer profs advised against Johns Hopkins for that reason. Rather, she didn't advise against it, per se, but when I mentioned it as a possibility, she blurted out, "Oh, but that program is so small!" then backreeled a little bit. It was amusing, but her point -- inadvertent as it may have been -- was well taken.

 

Of course I still wish I had applied to more programs -- Johns Hopkins included -- but I'm not sure it would have been worthwhile either way.