Aiden Sagerman’s research, supported through the HRSP program.
Next in our series of deep dives into specific fellowships is the Humanities Research Scholars Program, or HRSP! (The first deep dive on the Laidlaw Scholars Program is linked here.) HRSP provides five rising juniors in Columbia College with funding, mentorship, and training to pursue an independent research project in the humanities in the summer before their junior year. All HRSP scholars commit to engaging in research and participating full-time in a series of workshops and talks during the first summer session, and work under the supervision of a faculty mentor. The program also provides a living stipend and campus housing during the first summer session.
Applications for HRSP are generally due in early March of the applicants’ sophomore year—the 2024 deadline for applicants in the Columbia College Class of 2026 is March 5th, 2024, though make sure to check the program website for the most up-to-date information. All current sophomores pursuing a major in a humanities or adjacent social science or arts field are eligible to apply (see here for a full list of eligible majors, and here for the bios of previous scholars, showing the full range of research projects and majors represented in the program!).
For this blog post, I (MSW) am joined by my friend Aiden Sagerman (AFS) CC’24, a 2022 HRSP scholar, double-major in Comparative Literature & Society and Mathematics, and a 2024 Gates Cambridge Scholar-Elect. Aiden has kindly agreed to answer some questions about his experience of the program and advice for prospective applicants! The interview is divided in two parts: Part 1 focuses on the structure of the HRSP program, and Part 2 focuses on the details of the application process.
Part 1: The Program
MSW: To get us started, can you tell us a bit more about your research interests and what you did in HRSP? AFS: Broadly, I am interested in the history of American eugenics in its transnational contexts. The specific project I worked on for HRSP was on the relationship between American eugenicists and Mussolini’s regime in fascist Italy.
MSW: How is the HRSP program organized? How much structured time did you have with other scholars in the program (and/or in other Columbia Scholars Programs), versus independent time to work? AFS: HRSP is six weeks long. Most of the program is unstructured time—you have one big meeting every week with the people running the program and your fellow students, and lunch after that to talk with your fellow students. There were also other meetings at some points focused on specific skills like archival research. These were usually run by either the professor or the graduate student in charge of running the program. You also often have 1:1 meetings with both the professor and the graduate student.
The other big thing is that you are supposed to meet with your advisor, but that is totally between you and your advisor. I think I met with my advisor once a week, but all in all this couldn’t have been more than 4 hours of structured time per week.
In my case, since I was doing a lot of archival work, this meant that in practice I spent a lot of the time traveling. Some of my time was spent in libraries here working, but I took two trips to archives nearby—one to the George Eastman Museum in Rochester, and the other to the American Philosophical Society in Philadelphia. One of the real benefits of the structure is that you can spend your time how you want, especially if you have location-specific work to do—you can go do that wherever you want. The program is funded and organized so that that is a feasible thing.
MSW: How (if at all) did your work in HRSP influence or carry forward into your research and coursework at Columbia during junior and senior years? AFS: I had originally intended to write an article based on what I found, but I felt like I just did not quite have the methodology I needed to process a lot of the raw material. In the short term, I ended up using my HRSP work as inspiration for another research project the summer after my junior year (on the relationship between American and French eugenics), and eventually as the basis for my senior thesis. The project also convinced me to enroll in a graduate methods in history of science seminar my junior year. That went well for me—I’ll be at Cambridge doing an MPhil in the History and Philosophy of Science next year.
Part 2: The Application Process
MSW: When would you suggest prospective applicants begin thinking about their application? What were the steps for applying? AFS: I was fairly late to starting my application—I think I did the week before. Part of the reason I was able to do this so late was because I already had a mentor secured. With that in mind, I think that the first step is to have a project in mind. I had the idea from my project in a class entitled “What is Fascism?” with Professor Annie Pfeifer in the German department that I took in the Fall of my sophomore year (the semester before applying to HRSP). I discovered an article by an American eugenicist from the 1920s praising Mussolin’s regime. I thought this was odd because the American eugenicists tended to look down on mass politics at home, and there was a fascinating tension in the article between this aristocratic worldview and their perception of Italian fascism as a populist enterprise. It essentially amounted to them re-reading fascism as a sort of technocratic scientific governance. I had previously written a seminar paper on this for Professor Pfiefer’s class but I felt like I was just scratching the surface and wanted to get more into archival materials to understand the range of American eugenicist perspectives on the issue.
The second step is very soon after that to start reaching out to faculty. This doesn’t even need to be faculty whom you think would mentor the project—just people you’ve taken courses with might know of other people who would be interested in your project. I think I got very lucky in that Professor Pfiefer was available to mentor this and to continue working with me, but she almost was not able to, and only realized she was available at the last minute, so do work at least a month ahead to find your faculty mentor.
MSW: Any tips for applicants in terms of what to cover in their application essays? AFS: I think the first tip I would have is to make it clear why your project would benefit from this program. There are a lot of interesting research projects that people are involved in, but I think HRSP offers a very specific type of close guidance, and so you should be clear as to why this sort of intervention is necessary for you. When I applied, there was a 500-word research interest question, a 500-word previous research project question, and a question about on- and off-campus research resources.
I think for the last question you should make it clear that you did your homework. You don’t have to be certain that the resources are going to be perfect, since you can’t know what is or is not going to be useful before engaging with the materials. In my case, one of the archives I listed was a Broadway archive that may or may not have had a copy of a play by an American eugenicist about how much he loved Mussolini, but I couldn’t actually be sure of that without visiting. If you’re having trouble finding these resources, talk to the librarians, talk to the professors, look at the books you have read for where their sources are. A skill you will learn in this program is how to read through other people’s citations.
MSW: How did you go about requesting a letter of recommendation? What information would you advise applicants give their recommenders? AFS: I’m going to be honest—I don’t exactly remember. But having applied for a great number of fellowships, I would say—reach out very early, ask professors what would be useful for them, and don’t be afraid to be annoying with your reminder emails (provided, of course, you gave them enough time in the first place and aren’t requesting last-minute!). Also, send them your application if possible so that they know what you are applying to do and can tailor the letter to that. I am assuming that an advantage in my case was that the person that I wanted to work with was the same one who was writing for me—Professor Pfiefer—because the project was an extension from the work I did in her class, which she knew very well already. I don’t think this is strictly necessary, but you want to make sure that your recommenders are informed.
MSW: How did you find your faculty mentor for HRSP? Is it mandatory to have a faculty mentor confirmed when you apply? What advice would you give prospective applicants for finding a mentor? AFS: As I mentioned before, I got quite lucky in that I could just continue a project I had scratched the surface of with a paper for a course. But right up until the last minute, I thought that Professor Pfiefer—whom I ended up working with—was not going to be available, so I had been looking for other mentors. I started out by asking her for suggestions; she sent me to a professor who would have been very good, but was unfortunately retiring, who, in turn, sent me to a professor who never replied. I think the upshot of that whole experience was that I should have just kept following-up with the professor who never replied, but it ended up working out in the end.
With regard to whether or not it’s mandatory: I believe, at least when I applied, that it was not mandatory, but I think that the process of finding a mentor was super important for clarifying your project, because you want to be able to run it by an expert in your field, and have them say that it is interesting and/or that you would get something out of pursuing this. It also advantages your application.
More generally, having done a bunch of research projects, I have almost never been able to straightforwardly ask someone to supervise: I have always had someone be unavailable, leaving Columbia, on leave, etc. It’s important to keep trying and you shouldn’t be worried to cold-email. Undergraduate Research and Fellowships (URF) has a great guide for this!
MSW: Indeed they do—here’s the link! (Shoutout to Dean Lang and the amazing URF team!)
MSW: Was there an interview? If so, what was your interview experience like? AFS: Yes, there was an interview. It was very chill. It was just a conversation between me and Dean Ariella Lang from URF and Professor Denise Cruz, who was the faculty member running the program at the time. I think the most important thing to remember is that you are talking to real people and it’s a conversation, and so you should be responsive to what the interviewers seem to be interested in and/or confused by. I remember when I mentioned the Broadway archives thing they looked absolutely confused—I had to backpedal a little bit and show how it connected to my project, but I think in the end that was a great thing to mention since it showed how I really did my homework. I think also because you are meeting the person who is running the program there, it is also a great opportunity to learn a little more about the program and what you’ll be getting out of it as well. If you have questions, feel free to prepare and bring them to the interview.
MSW: Amazing! Thanks so much!