In our September "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:
My question is: is going to a program which is not strong in my research area (e.g. no faculty member in the area) worth it? Do programs want to accept people who don't fit with the[ir] strengths? My letters are all from people in that area. Is that going to be a problem?
Background: I'm a second-year MA student at a university in a non-English speaking country. I'll be applying to PhD programs in English speaking countries. My research field in philosophy is relatively small, so some programs (even the biggest or most elite ones) don't have any faculty in that field. But some great philosophers (young or old) got PhD from universities which have no strength or even no faculty member in the area (mostly from the most elite ones). I know going to a elite university (if possible) will be probably worth it in many ways, even though it has no strength in the area. But how about going to a non-ranked or lower-ranked program without any strength in it? If that's worth it, I can apply to great many programs, and maybe I can choose places where I would like to study. Neighbor areas are of course taken into consideration.
In an unpublished comment, another reader responded:
I think you are thinking about graduate school the wrong way. When you choose a program you are choosing to work with the people who are there, on problems and questions that they are interested in. That is what they will be teaching there courses in. That is where they have expertise and can help you. And that is what you can stand a chance of getting a job in. You would be making a big mistake to go to a problem where you are uninterested in what the faculty there do. I saw this before – a Nietzsche student at a philosophy of science program, for example. The student suffered so much.
I think this is a great question, and while I appreciate the above response, I think it is a bit too quick. Allow me to explain.
To my mind, one real key here is whether the commenter is absolutely wedded to their area of focus. If they are, then yes, I think it could be a real mistake to choose a program with no faculty in the area. But what about if there is some real chance the student's interests could change? I'll use myself as an example here. During my undergraduate degree at Tufts, I focused primarily on philosophy of mind: on intentionality and consciousness. When I applied to grad programs, that's the area I was pretty sure I wanted to work in. However, when I entered Syracuse's PhD program, they only had one person in philosophy of mind, and I quickly found myself enamored by metaphysics, epistemology, and the philosophy of language, in large part because there were some stellar young faculty there at the time who made these areas seem especially exciting. Alas, when those faculty were hired away by another department, I transferred to Arizona–this time intending to work in metaphysics and epistemology. Alas, once I got there, I quickly fell in love with ethics and social-political philosophy (again, because there were great faculty in those areas!).
Not everyone is like me, of course, with such wandering interests. Yet, in my own case at least, I have to say that ending up in grad programs whose faculty members had vastly different strengths than my interests was a real blessing. My interests ended up changing dramatically, and exposure to new areas of philosophy was not only exciting; it gave me a much broader philosophical education that I might have gotten had I simply ended up in a program where I would have focused primarily on my area of initial interest (consciousness). Finally, I think there may be one more issue worth thinking about here: the fact that the initial commenter above notes that their field of interest is 'relatively small.' If indeed it is small (such as, for example, Nietzsche studies), then one relevant question to ask here is: are there any jobs in the area? The fact that they note that many of the biggest and 'most elite' programs don't have anyone is the area is a bit concerning. Perhaps they would be better off focusing in an area that has more interest (and more jobs), and then continue to engage in their current area of interest on the side. It's hard to say, of course, without knowing what exactly their area of interest is. But still, these seem to me things worth thinking about.
But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?
Leave a Reply to TTCancel reply