Lukewarm Recommendations and Dueling Writing Samples

[Dr. Old Bill]

Soooo...one of my letter writers asked to meet with me today. We're on great terms, like each other a great deal etc., but he wanted to tell me that based on the writing he has seen from me so far (a 20-page paper for his course a year ago, as well as a 15-page paper I've been planning to use as my writing sample), he can only give me a GOOD recommendation, not a great one...so I should consider if I want that, or if I should find someone else. He emphasized that he truly wants to read drafts of my WS and SOP as they come along, and offered every level of support possible...but I can't deny that the takeaway is disappointing.

I'm in a bit of a weird situation. All three of my letter-writers have read my proposed WS. One of them is very much a fan of it, thinks it is great work and is well-written etc. Incidentally, her specialization is the closest to what the paper is about. Another letter-writer, who is my mentor, thinks it needs a lot more work, and suggested I might want to use a paper I wrote for her course a year ago instead (which does have relevance to the programs I'm applying to etc.). The third, the one I mentioned at the outset, thinks it is good, but doesn't have enough of my voice in it, and engages too much with critical scholarship (something that my mentor also mentioned). Incidentally, I ran it by a Ph.D. student at the Graduate Writing Center, and he thinks it's very good, requiring only a few tweaks here and there. So it's definitely a dilemma.

I'm going to meet with another professor I have a great rapport with, and see if he is willing to write me a letter. The problem, of course, is that now I'm really torn about my proposed Writing Sample, and what WS to even use. The one my mentor suggested is a paper that I really enjoyed writing, but it received an A-...so I basically filed it away without thinking more about it. Now that she's telling me that it's a better paper overall...well...it's a quandary. One possibility is submitting truncated/edited versions of both papers, giving adcoms a "two-fer," as it were, but I don't think that's the best idea.

Any thoughts?

[Glasperlenspieler]

Two thoughts on the writing sample:

 

1) It seems like the most valuable opinion on the paper should be from the professor whose field it is. So the fact that she is a big fan of it seems like it should be weighted very heavily. That being said, an admissions committee is probably not going to consist only of people in your specialty, so maybe for some reason this paper is less attractive to people not familiar with the field. If so, is there a way you can address this problem?

 

2) Can you run the paper by someone who has a little more distance from you and your work? Maybe a professor from your undergrad who works in your area or someone you've met a conferences? I get the sense that it might be helpful to get an outside voice but from someone who is still knowledgeable on the topic, since these professors have presumably been working fairly closely with you for some time now. Then again, this might just add another perspective to the mix leaving you even more confused. So there's always a risk to hearing from more people.

[Romanista]

I wouldn't balk at using a paper that received an A-. Grading is so subjective that an A- from one strict prof may mean more than an A from a prof who gives out As.

[Bumblebea]

Ugh, that reminds me of something very similar that happened to me when I was applying out of my MA program for a PhD. You have my sympathies. I'm guessing your "lukewarm" recommender wants to throw his support behind another student--like maybe he's making a big play to keep another person in the program, and he knows that, due to the make-up of the admissions committee, some compromises are going to have to be made. 

I think it's good that you might have this other letter writer option. If not, I don't think one slightly milk-toast letter is going to sink an otherwise solid application. (The first time I applied--when I got into my MA program--I applied with what had to be the worst and most embarrassing letter of rec in the history of grad admissions from my undergrad advisor, who happened to be weeks away from checking himself into rehab. But that's a totally different story and I won't bore you with the details.)

In terms of the WS--I'm with everyone else here who thinks that the A- paper might be worth a shot. But it would be really difficult to say without knowing more about both samples. 

[Dr. Old Bill]

Thanks, folks. Honestly, I'm more annoyed than anything else, simply because everything seemed to be progressing smoothly -- I had my writers, my WS was getting closer and closer through guided revision, and my informal timeline for having everything done was solid. This double-wrinkle can definitely be overcome, but it just adds to the general pressure of an already highly pressurized process.

The professor I am meeting with today is renowned in his field, though he is firmly a 20th century scholar, when my field is early modern. Not a big deal, of course, but I was hoping to have all three of my writers early modernists.

I'm still undecided about the WS issue, however. I guess I have a bit of time to figure that one out...

[EmmaJava]

Jumping back in after a long break because WT has always been the consumate GC poster and every once in a while our commonalities intersect - here is one such time. WT, I'm going to come at this one from a slightly different angle, not because I disagree with anyone here at all, but only because I have some personal experience with this, too.

So how confident are you about your other two recommenders being outstanding/great/glowing/etc?  Because if you have 2 amazing recs and 1 "good" rec, then there is the possibility that this can sort of stand-in as a substitute to trading out WS's. Me, I'd rather have the WS of my own choosing, the one I felt best about, the one most central to my SoP, and let the rec chips fall where they may. I don't mean for that to sound too passive (I'm not passive, trust me), but I think there is something to be said for the fact that the WS is entirely within your control in a way that your recs simply aren't. Sure, they both reflect on you, or are taken to do so, or whatever, but I feel better about retaining total WS control and conceding slightly on recs than vice versa. As for that personal experience, I'm fairly confident that I had one "good" rec and two jaw-dropping recs. I know that one was truly amazing because my mentor broke his or her own rule and shared it with me. I am pretty sure that one was good because I couldn't ever get a read one way or the other, but I know what he or she saw as my strengths and weaknesses and it made me cringe. And I have second-hand reason to suspect that the third one was pretty glowing based on a comment about it from an ad-com chair (incidentally, it was a comment that corroborated the goodness-not-greatness of another rec). Now, my WS...that was something that I took total control over, entirely independent of these recommenders, and out of my sense that it mattered more (in my case, only 1 of 3 recommenders was really a central figure in my area, and a bit of a dated one at that; the other 2 are fairly well-known and respected but certainly not rock-star famous, and what's more - not really in my area at all; my application's strength was simply not in recs. It was in tying a very good WS to a very tortured SoP).

Of course, this could lead to many other subtleties - are the 2 great recs from well-known profs vs the other, or vice versa, or some other permutation? But here we have that great opportunity to remind ourselves not to overthink things too much. You're clearly a strategic applicant, well-versed in what to emphasize and how to make an application. It cannot be said too often that no amount of strategery can predict or indicate how your application cycle will shake out. The weirdest things will happen, most of it out of your control (again, this can be said with a mutual understanding that nobody here is being passive or resigned). A (non-recommending) professor once told me: "If you're good, you're good." Past that, not much you can do, and I've held onto that. And my guess is that you're good, so go with your gut and don't look back.

[Dr. Old Bill]

You're a sweetheart, @EmmaJava -- thank you!

There were a lot of developments today -- too many to list here, but I'm definitely feeling better about things in general. I approached another professor about a LOR, and he joyously agreed...until I reminded him that I am an early modernist. I have taken a number of 20th century courses (two with him) so I can understand how he might have forgotten. While he is still more than willing to write me a letter, he strongly encouraged me to find another professor in my field...whether or not I have even had a class with that person. I've heard a lot of mixed opinions on that subject -- whether all of your LORs should be from professors in your field -- but he was quite insistent on its importance. As a result, I will talk to yet another professor in my general area, though I can't deny that it feels a bit like I'm going door-to-door. At least everyone is willing to write me letters...I just wish I had someone to take me under his/her wing a little bit like I did as an undergraduate. That's a naive wish, I know.

As to the WS question, the director of the graduate writing center (where I work) made a fantastic point: if I decide to use both WS's, or choose one over the other, I can always mention the other paper at length in my SOP. Her strategy for going about it is rather clever as well: since one of the two potential WS's is going to be expanded into a Capstone/Thesis in the spring, I can essentially introduce it as a larger research project -- one that isn't complete enough to use as a WS. We'll see if that's what I wind up doing. Both of my potential WS's are generally in the same ballpark, though one engages mostly with historicist race theory, while the other deals mostly with a "history of the book" issue -- both grounded in the early modern era, of course. My writing style is quite different in both as well -- the history of the book paper is more lively and personal (I use "I" a lot more), while the historicist race theory paper is more tonally sedate.

So as of right now, there are no slam dunk "solutions" to my dilemma, but at least there are some legitimate options. I just wish this didn't erode my confidence ever so slightly. It's hard to hear something akin to "you're good, but not great," from a scholar you admire, even if it's truly not a damning proclamation.

[AnimeChic101!]

I'm also curious about the LOR having to come from somebody in your field. My program is extremely small. There are only 2 people in my area and only one of them knows me fairly well. LOR's are a real issue if you don't come from a place with a lot of people in your field. In undergrad, there was nobody in my field so at least this is better.

[Bumblebea]

18 minutes ago, Wyatt's Terps said:

You're a sweetheart, @EmmaJava -- thank you!

There were a lot of developments today -- too many to list here, but I'm definitely feeling better about things in general. I approached another professor about a LOR, and he joyously agreed...until I reminded him that I am an early modernist. I have taken a number of 20th century courses (two with him) so I can understand how he might have forgotten. While he is still more than willing to write me a letter, he strongly encouraged me to find another professor in my field...whether or not I have even had a class with that person. I've heard a lot of mixed opinions on that subject -- whether all of your LORs should be from professors in your field -- but he was quite insistent on its importance.

Wow! That's a new one, Wyatt's Terps. I have never heard that all three LORs need to be in one's proposed area of specialization. Master's students take so many classes to fulfill distribution requirements that few have actually worked with three professors in the field by the beginning of their second year. And I know he's saying that you should go find someone you haven't even had a class with ... but that's really asking a lot of someone. It's hard to write a recommendation letter for someone if you've never seen them in action. Professors at this time of year are also writing letters for their students going on the job market, and those students often take priority.

FWIW, I only had one letter in my proposed area of specialization when I applied for PhD programs. That one person was very famous, and, truth be told, I had begun graduate school in an entirely different field and then fallen in love with my current field along the way ... so maybe that explains how I still managed to get in. But most of the people I know didn't have three recommenders from the same field lined up. Most had two (if they were lucky) with a wild card thrown in for good measure. 

This is a situation I'd definitely ask your DGS about. Jesus, the graduate admissions process is resembling the job market more and more every year, with people expected to have perfectly matching writing samples and SOPs and three recommenders from the proposed area of study. Soon they'll be asking you to assemble your dissertation committee before you even get there. Yikes.  

[HumanCylinder]

Hello again! I saw this thread as I was checking back in after having started in my program -- thought I'd share my experience with LORs, because it was a little odd, too. 

I proposed my work as a "modernist" but really looking at it transitionally (I actually consider my area 1880-1930 and am pretty even handed with treatment of late-Victorian and Modernist work).  Applying from my M.A., I asked the Victorianist who was something of a mentor to me and was strongly supportive.   I know her letter was very strong because she said it was on the long side and couldn't manage to cut it, and she also was able to talk about my presentation at a conference we had both attended. My second letter writer has a lot of renown, mostly for theory.  I can't say that I had a super close relationship with him but he agreed to write the letter.  For my third letter writer, I chose a modernist because, well, I thought it would be important to have someone in my field.  She agreed to write the letter for my first and second (failed) round of applications.  When I approached her about re-applying, though, she told me she didn't think that the letter she wrote for me was very strong and I should ask someone else.  I also found out that she is just not a very good letter writer even for students with whom she has a super good relationship (and I was not one of those).  Since there were no other modernists in my dept., I asked a medievalist.  I asked him because he seemed very confident in my ability as a student (even though he gave me A-s) and I had two classes with him, and he was the grad director who admitted me in the first place.  He told me that he wouldn't be able to attest to my ability to contribute to my field, but could speak to things like my dedication, work ethic, and more general academic acumen.  He knew me as a student so much better than the modernist (weirdly), so I think that he was ultimately able to write a more authentic and convincing letter.  I also was successful with his letter in my third application season.  What I took away from my experience is that the level of detail with which a person is able to describe you will be much more compelling, and will be better testimony for the committee who is deciding whether they should take a risk on you or someone else.  

Also, @Wyatt's Terps, I noticed that you mentioned history of the book.  I know you probably have your list set, but thought I'd plug Texas A&M.  I visited their program (though didn't choose to attend there), and I picked up that book history was a big emphasis there.  They also seem to have strengths related to Shakespeare and early modern studies.         

[Dr. Old Bill]

Thanks for this, HC! Some great input there.

[lyonessrampant]

I would second the advice to go with the WS that you feel most enthusiastic about and that the prof closest to the field supports. If not as much of your voice is coming through and you're doing too much lit review, which it seems like was the first prof's opinion, maybe push some of that lit review into the footnotes. Especially when engaging with theoretical scholarship, it is so easy to spend a bunch of time simply surveying their positions and then saying how your intervention works. Pick one or maybe two key figures and forefront your intervention and then put the review and careful differentiation work more into the notes. Looking at your paragraph and section structure to make sure that you're highlighting your claim at top rather than just summarizing other positions first can help, too. It gives the impression of major revision when in fact the changes are pretty subtle. Good luck to you!