Recommendation: fame vs. controversy?

[nonexistententity]

Hi all,

Here's a dilemma I've been struggling with: I know I can secure a very positive letter of recommendation from an internationally famous philosopher. However, this is someone who is quite controversial, in the sense that some people think their work is worthless. It's cutting edge continental stuff, so both analytic philosophers and more traditionally-minded continental philosophers tend to be sceptical.

Besides being a recommendation from a 'big name', this is someone who doesn't teach at my own university, but still has a pretty good sight both of my philosophical skill, and other academic skills (I organized a number of conferences where they were a speaker).

The question is: would this recommendation help me or hurt me? Would it be worth the risk? Any thoughts in general on the relative weight of fame vs. controversy; and of the value of recommendations from outside your own university?

[maxhgns]

Can this person speak to your work, though? Like, your actual scholarly work. If so, then it's not likely to hurt--although you should take some time to consider whether this person is better-placed to do this than people who have actually taught or supervised you. Fame isn't really what matters at this level; it's the ability to speak to your file.

 

If the person in question is Zizek-level infamous, however, that might actually be more of a downside at programs that don't explicitly engage with this person's work. If, on the other hand, this person is Graham Harman-level infamous, then it should be fine.

[ianfaircloud]

"Fame" isn't really important, but "reputation" is important. If your letter-writer has no reputation (that's not the same thing as a bad reputation), then no matter how strong the letter is, it may not help as much as even a "good" letter from someone with a reputation. The reason is simply that the reader of that letter has maybe no idea whether the letter-writer is qualified to recommend you to the reader. Best to find a letter writer who has a reputation or an association with a reputable institution.

The best letter would be from a philosopher who has an amazing reputation among philosophers, who also knows you and your work very well, thinks you're amazing, thinks your work is amazing, and can and does communicate that through the letter. That's the best letter. Subtract any of those elements, and the letter gets worse.

Watch out for either of the following cases:

1) Three letters with very strong content (i.e. detailed, long letters that show familiarity with your work, praise your work in the right way, show that you have philosophical potential) but from absolutely unknown people with no ties to reputable institutions. Or worse: written by non-philosophers.

2) Three letters from people with ties to reputable institutions. But those letters are poorly written. Or they don't show familiarity with you or your work. They're short letters. They say nothing negative, but they say very little about your potential. Or worse: the letters make you sound good but average-- not special.

I think it's very unlikely that a letter would receive less credit because it was written by a philosopher whose work is controversial or unpopular, unless the reason the person's work is unpopular (among philosophers) is that the work demonstrates a lack of understanding of philosophy or otherwise diminishes the letter-writer's credibility. Don't think: Is the person controversial? Think: Is the person disrespected?