(another) question about SOPs, mentioning professors, etc

[1Q84]

With the exception of the professors I spoke with over email or the phone, I did not read anyone's research that I mentioned in my SoP. Really, if a professor reads your SoP and denies you because you mentioned him in an outdated context ("The audacity of this applicant: I haven't published about Milton in 20 years!"), that professor probably isn't great advisor material. 

I don't think that's what I was really getting at, though. I still think it's important to know the research of who you're naming because if you do cite the Milton research from 1980 that Professor X no longer works on, the adcomm will see and, here's the important part, that such a pairing would be to the applicant's detriment because they won't find the resources that they need or want to develop his or her project. It has nothing to do with offending the professor in question. Any sensible adcomm will hesitate on those grounds because they want to best serve any incoming students and ensure a healthy, supported cohort. 

[ProfLorax]

IQ84, I see what you're saying now. Your strategy is a smart one, and I see how it would lead to a strong fit paragraph and perhaps a strong Writing Sample as well. That said, do you really think someone could be rejected due to referring to older work from a professor? I feel like in my own department, our established, big name professors who made their name studying X but now are more interested in writing about Y still advise students on topic X. That professor who wrote about Milton in the 80's is probably still teaching Milton and still a good resource, I'd think? 

I guess my own position is that if you do refer to professors, do so strategically and intentionally, but ultimately, I don't think that one aspect of an SoP will make or break an application. 

[Dr. Old Bill]

This may be apropos of nothing, but...

As an undergrad, I was assigned an advisor in the English department. His interests seemed nothing like my own -- literature and medicine. He was a nice man, and fairly old, having taught at the institution for forty-five years. I was in his office one day, and happened to notice a couple volumes on Edwin Arlington Robinson on his shelf. I was a fan of Robinson's poetry myself, so I mentioned them...and we talked about how he had done extensive work on Robinson in the 70s. From that, I proposed the possibility of working together on an independent study, and he reacted enthusiastically, welcoming the "opportunity to revisit Robinson again."

My point is that even if a professor might have moved on from a particular research interest, it doesn't necessarily mean that he / she has abandoned that interest...just that the research had run its course, and the professor moved on to different things. In this case, it happened that his son had gone to med school and had become a doctor, which led to the prof's interest in the intersection between literature and medicine. His interest in the work of Robinson was not gone...just dormant.

Long story short: whether a professor's research is current or from long ago, that professor had a great deal of investment in the material. That level of investment is unlikely to pass away from his or her view completely.

[haltheincandescent]

This may be apropos of nothing, but...

As an undergrad, I was assigned an advisor in the English department. His interests seemed nothing like my own -- literature and medicine. He was a nice man, and fairly old, having taught at the institution for forty-five years. I was in his office one day, and happened to notice a couple volumes on Edwin Arlington Robinson on his shelf. I was a fan of Robinson's poetry myself, so I mentioned them...and we talked about how he had done extensive work on Robinson in the 70s. From that, I proposed the possibility of working together on an independent study, and he reacted enthusiastically, welcoming the "opportunity to revisit Robinson again."

My point is that even if a professor might have moved on from a particular research interest, it doesn't necessarily mean that he / she has abandoned that interest...just that the research had run its course, and the professor moved on to different things. In this case, it happened that his son had gone to med school and had become a doctor, which led to the prof's interest in the intersection between literature and medicine. His interest in the work of Robinson was not gone...just dormant.

Long story short: whether a professor's research is current or from long ago, that professor had a great deal of investment in the material. That level of investment is unlikely to pass away from his or her view completely.

Yes, this. Much of my BA advisor's current work deals with American postmodernism and film/cultural studies, and this is what I worked with him on, but he still advises dissertations on earlier, more strictly literary and English modernism, since that's what his earlier work focused on. If its very clear that they've moved on in terms of methodology for a reason that invalidates their earlier work (I'm thinking of maybe R. Barthes's shift from structuralism-->poststructuralism?), and you write a SoP saying you want to work with them because your own research is inspired by their earlier (now reversed) methods, that might be trouble. But if they've taught recent classes on something, and still list what you're interested in on their faculty profile as a research area, then I can't see it being too much of a problem at all.

[Between Fields]

I mentioned two professor's names in my SOP. I'm in the middle of my second year and haven't ever worked with either of them. I'm friendly with one for department governance stuff. I haven't met the other one, because she has been on a leave of absence for family reasons since before I even applied. With that being said, I still have a great research fit with the department and am getting to do exactly what I said I wanted to do.

[NowMoreSerious]

For perspective: Now in my third year, I don't work with either of the two professors I named in my SOP, nor do they serve on any of my committeess.  

I think what was important on my SOP is demonstrating that I knew how to lay out an SOP and how to align my work, at least in theory, with that of professors in the department.  

They are looking for an SOP that coheres, and that you are able to connect your work to that of professors in ways that seem crucial, almost as if that was the perfect school for you.  Just like the rest of your SOP, make it concrete and demonstrate how carefully you can think about things in general.  

[1Q84]

On October 29, 2015 at 11:43:51 AM, ProfLorax said:

IQ84, I see what you're saying now. Your strategy is a smart one, and I see how it would lead to a strong fit paragraph and perhaps a strong Writing Sample as well. That said, do you really think someone could be rejected due to referring to older work from a professor? I feel like in my own department, our established, big name professors who made their name studying X but now are more interested in writing about Y still advise students on topic X. That professor who wrote about Milton in the 80's is probably still teaching Milton and still a good resource, I'd think? 

I guess my own position is that if you do refer to professors, do so strategically and intentionally, but ultimately, I don't think that one aspect of an SoP will make or break an application. 

Right, I'm not saying that people must mention professors in their SOP. I'm saying that if they do, it should absolutely be an informed mention rather than an outdated one. 

(Also, I'm tickled that you and many others keep calling me IQ84... Is that how you all really see me? )

Edited November 4, 2015 by 1Q84

[bhr]

For my MA SoP I named three professors at my current school. One is my chair, one is on my committee and I've had the third for two classes. That said, I didn't bother naming folks at some programs because I didn't have as clear a connection to their work.

[ProfLorax]

On 11/4/2015, 11:57:27, 1Q84 said:

(Also, I'm tickled that you and many others keep calling me IQ84... Is that how you all really see me? )

Oh my gosh! It's a 1 in your username?! I feel like I don't even know you anymore! (My apologies: I'll get your username right next time!)

[haltheincandescent]

So, I ended up with a fit paragraph that partly talks about recent/current courses offered in the department, and how the range of the curriculum supports my range of research interests--I worded it as "Professor X's class on X, Professor Y's course on Y, and Professor Z's course on Z..." then wrapped up that part by essentially stating that both the specific courses as well as their reflection of the faculty's current research interests and areas of specialization will benefit me both in the coursework part of the program, as well as when I'm working on my dissertation (so implying that these profs could be future committee members, without outright stating it). For those programs where there are people whose work has legitimately influenced my thinking, I added a sentence saying as much: I'm especially interested in working with Professor Z, as her article "ZZZ" was influential to my thinking on my thesis project" or whatever. 

Any thoughts on whether this is a useful way to go about pointing toward a range of potential advisors while avoiding the pitfalls of "well those specific people might retire/go on sabbatical"? (I mean, obviously those same courses might not be offered again, but I tried to reference ones across several recent semesters, and I also assume that course offerings might be a pretty good reflection of the department's overall vision of itself at present, and so that the dept. would pursue at least somewhat similar goals in structuring a curriculum even if those specific profs weren't teaching for a semester or two? [the last part is admittedly a big assumption])

[__________________________]

Jeez, y'all are putting a lot of thought into this.  For the SOP for the place I go to now, my mention of professors I wanted to work with was, like, two sentences.  "I am especially interested in working with Professor X and Professor Y, as both are doing work that is both sensitive to [bla bla bla, historical field bullshit] and theoretically rigorous."  Or something like that.  I made no mentions of courses.  One of those professors is on sabbatical right now, but I can still get in touch with him if I want to.  

On 10/31/2015, 6:43:19, NowMoreSerious said:

I think what was important on my SOP is demonstrating that I knew how to lay out an SOP and how to align my work, at least in theory, with that of professors in the department.  

They are looking for an SOP that coheres, and that you are able to connect your work to that of professors in ways that seem crucial, almost as if that was the perfect school for you.  Just like the rest of your SOP, make it concrete and demonstrate how carefully you can think about things in general.  

I think this is right on, and it doesn't necessarily have to translate to: "I read this and this book and this article and want to work on this stuff, just like Professors X, Y, and Z."  It means identifying the spirit of the department, their particular methodological and theoretical concerns and, if you see yourself fitting in with that environment, presenting yourself in a way that is sensitive to those concerns.  This is why it can be useful to correspond with POIs: by now, you should have identified what you want in a school, and by asking POIs about specific things at their schools you can get a sense of what they have to offer you and what sorts of things their program prioritizes.  This is much more important, I think, than telling them what stuff you've read and how you see yourself as being super influenced by specific professors.   Courses offered and the research interests of professors, it would seem to me, are much less important than conveying what sorts of dialogues you want to have and what you can bring to the table in those courses and with those professors.  That's my sense at my institution, anyway.  It could be different at other places.  

[1Q84]

5 hours ago, mollifiedmolloy said:

Jeez, y'all are putting a lot of thought into this.  For the SOP for the place I go to now, my mention of professors I wanted to work with was, like, two sentences.  "I am especially interested in working with Professor X and Professor Y, as both are doing work that is both sensitive to [bla bla bla, historical field bullshit] and theoretically rigorous."  Or something like that.  I made no mentions of courses.  One of those professors is on sabbatical right now, but I can still get in touch with him if I want to.  

While I agree with your overall statement that being able to identify and articulate one's fit with the department's overall specialties/methodologies is most important, I don't think it would hurt to mention that we folks who are in programs already once suffered in these anxiety-laden, panicky few weeks before Dec 1 and overthought many parts of our apps as well. It's easy to look back in retrospect and say, "Yes, what I did made sense and it worked out for me. See?" But I also think various other SOP formats can and do work, and that includes demonstrating a more thorough-going knowledge of Prof. X's work.

[__________________________]

2 hours ago, 1Q84 said:

While I agree with your overall statement that being able to identify and articulate one's fit with the department's overall specialties/methodologies is most important, I don't think it would hurt to mention that we folks who are in programs already once suffered in these anxiety-laden, panicky few weeks before Dec 1 and overthought many parts of our apps as well. It's easy to look back in retrospect and say, "Yes, what I did made sense and it worked out for me. See?" But I also think various other SOP formats can and do work, and that includes demonstrating a more thorough-going knowledge of Prof. X's work.

Fair.  

[random_grad]

15 hours ago, haltheincandescent said:

specific courses

This seems like a smart way to show that you really bothered to look in detail at what they are doing!

15 hours ago, haltheincandescent said:

I'm especially interested in working with Professor Z, as her article "ZZZ" was influential to my thinking on my thesis project"

I think the best way to show this is to quote professor Z in your writing sample. You can do both. But definitely try to quote profs in your sample.

Contrary to what some have said, I think it is extremely important to familiarize yourself with the research of potential advisors. If they happen to do stuff in a way that you find unacceptable, it will not be a good match. A genre that I've found most helpful is book reviews. You usually see more personality in books reviews. It's also shorter and shows fields in which the prof in considered an expert. Love book reviews. It can show who's an asshole and who's awesome.

Still, the writing is usually not enough to show who would be a good advisor. So if you don't have enough time, don't worry, there are other ways to find out. The best way to find out at this point is talking to your profs. They know who is who in your field, and they know of situations when a student is abadoned by their advisor. Then, once you get admitted, talk to upper-year students, but these may not be as open with prospective students. But there are ways to ask questions in a way that they won't know what would be the good answer for you and thus find out about the prof. E.g. how involved they are which can become how controlling they are. It's basically about asking positive questions about negative stuff lol. Also, if you happen upon a talkative upper-year student, they can give you gold - in time.

 

Edited November 13, 2015 by random_grad

[__________________________]

8 hours ago, random_grad said:

But definitely try to quote profs in your sample.

While I see nothing against this in general, I don't think at all that this needs to be a rule.  Familiarizing yourself with professors' work is different than quoting all their stuff.  I'm not saying that it's inappropriate, just that I think it's silly to say "yeah, this is definitely something you should try and do in all your SOPs."  There are different ways to demonstrate familiarity and similar scholarly concerns than just quoting them and saying you read their book, and sometimes you have to resort to other ways if you have POIs who are junior faculty and may not have a book yet and have just done a couple articles here and there.  But by no means should this translate to not familiarizing yourself with their work; how else are would you be picking programs to apply to in the first place?

8 hours ago, random_grad said:

Contrary to what some have said, I think it is extremely important to familiarize yourself with the research of potential advisors.

Nobody's said not to familiarize yourself with the work of POIs.  This is something you do in the program too.  Like reading the most recent book of someone you plan on taking a seminar with, paying attention to the recent work of a potential advisor, or, really, just anyone's work at the university whose work interests you.  Part of being an academic is just knowing what kind of stuff people around you are working on.  That's part of the culture you're entering into and should be able to show. 

Edited November 13, 2015 by mollifiedmolloy

[random_grad]

9 hours ago, mollifiedmolloy said:

I don't think at all that this needs to be a rule

I was saying what I was saying in the context of:

17 hours ago, random_grad said:

"ZZZ" was influential to my thinking on my thesis project"

If it truly was influential, then quote it. Of course, in other contexts it doesn't have to be a rule.

 

 

 

9 hours ago, mollifiedmolloy said:

Nobody's said not to familiarize yourself with the work of POIs.

That's not what I said people said. However, people did say that it's not too important to read their research. That's where my position differs. I think it is "extremely important."