EmmaJava

I will say that I for one was a bit confused about the assumptions and conclusions being made based on your posts. This is not a defense, because I was also confused by your posts, and I guess others were, too. But, speaking for myself, I didn't have the time to go back through and read the backlog thoroughly, and - here's another assumption - figured that those who were weighing in were doing a really diligent job of dissecting every little word from every post...because that's what I do when I do literature, and some of the responses here certainly give the appearance of very close reading. I have been an outsider/lurker to this conversation and I think that the clarification is constructive, thanks for providing it.

So far, so good, Tinieblas - I have completed a number of the early Dec deadline programs, like Berkeley Rhetoric and Stanford's Modern Thought and Literature, and they have all had a place to upload a CV or something similar. I'm feeling reassured, I hope others are too as we wade together into these crazy waters. I anticipate that I'll have my head down until the smoke clears in early January, good luck to all!

Sure thing, will give it a crack. Thanks, Horb.

Much appreciated, Wyatt's Terps. I was thinking, too, since they require uploads of the transcripts, that I could just leave that self-reported field blank and let them sort it out? My first instinct was the same as yours but I have this nagging feeling that I'll get dinged for it, accused of dishonesty or something. I guess this is the part where you just trust that they are viewing applications in such a way as to accurately get all of this info, and then here is the part where I second-guess that based on the data entry that they're having me do on a cookie-cutter interface and knowing that they need a ready-made convention for cutting the pile of applications into a tiny fraction. I'm sure the thread exists somewhere, but the process itself has caused me to seriously question aspects of my application that I previously - in the land of abstractly thinking through the components of my application - thought would be strengths, not weaknesses. Like a second masters, for example, which according to the online systems that I'm encountering is pure liability. Ditto for a number of other aspects. Hence my longing for a place to submit a CV, so that I can make certain things that are getting buried more readily visible. So, the thread that probably already exists somewhere: Do applicants need to be preparing themselves in cookie-cutter fashion? Of course you want to say no, that's ridiculous. But then you have to go through the process, and any discerning realist can see straight through the screens to a machine that systematically eliminates your application based on shoe-horned misperceptions. I look back over my past couple of posts and see that I'm coming off as depressingly negative (sorry!), but my goal is straight-ahead honesty. As a reflective applicant, these are honest feelings and I'm willing to bet pretty spot-on, too. But...we shall see. Only one way to find out, right?

Alright, so I must self-report grad-level GPA, that seems reasonable. What should I do if I have an MA in English Literature with a 4.0 from a US institution and a different masters from another country with not a 4.0 but an entirely different grading scale? On the one hand, I don't feel that I'm misrepresenting myself by entering a 4.0 in my primary field of study, since the little data entry boxes only allow for a single GPA and a single "graduate grading scale" - how can I enter a cumulative for two degrees with different grading scales? On the other hand, the little instruction box tells me that any misrepresentation of my GPA will impact my admissibility. Sometimes I feel like a unique applicant. Other times I wish I weren't so unique so that I could contend with bureaucracy. Should I just grab a GPA calculator and do the best that I can trying to approximate the non-US degree into a 4.0 scale? But what sucks about that is that my legit 4.0 will get passed over, right? It feels like even when you get a 4.0 you can't display it. Any thoughts?

Unfortunately I haven't even had the chance to check it out yet, what with GREs and drafts of a million different things, trying to communicate with letter writers, etc. - however I will be sure to let you know if I come across a non-CV friendly site! I should be getting online in the next week or so. Right now I'm still just assuming that some aspect of this whole process is borderline reasonable, like getting a single chance to show - in any format whatsoever - what I've done right, and not just how I suck. I hope that doesn't come off as unnecessarily negative or whatever. Just trying to be funny and make light of what seems to be an inherently unwinnable game on so many fronts, haha. Chin up and CV's ready!

I can totally relate to this question, and I have received very similar feedback on my own drafts. For what it's worth, I believe that the statement of purpose is by far the most difficult piece of writing that I've ever tried, and this coming from someone with several peer-reviewed publications. I don't mean that immodestly but contextually. I am routinely told that my writing is great but that the content isn't what an admissions committee would be looking for - I think that, for me, at least, this is largely a function of trying to incorporate too much advice into the confines of too little space. I have scoured these boards and others like them to figure out what an SoP should look like, and while there is a ton of great advice, I honestly still don't know (and I'm reeeeally trying, here). After a long time, I came across a post that boiled it down to "focus, fit, future" (sorry for lack of citation, but it's somewhere in the SoP boards), and I thought that was a pretty nifty and concise formula. Well, I wrote the hell out of a "focus, fit, future" statement and (crushingly) received feedback almost identical to yours. In fact, my biggest, long-time supporter was visibly fed-up with me and dispensed with any encouragement, telling me, this time - "This isn't going to work." (Even more crushingly, she asked me - earnestly, I think - if I really did want to be an academic after all.) How is this relevant, aside from commiserating? It think it's relevant because I finally had someone get through to me (not the aforementioned supporter, but another one that I took it to after being crushed) - a trusted source within a department that I'm trying to get into provided encouraging words in addition to the following advice: "I wonder, then, if you can focus your statement very pointedly on the kind of work you would like to do in our program, providing a clear and detailed sense of what authors or issues you'd examine and how your treatment of them would relate to your larger commitment to [insert my focus here]. Your audience for this thing will not consist of specialists in either the area you want to study or the project you want to pursue. So you need to convince them that you know what you're doing by writing simply and providing as much detail as you can about the means and ends of your work. ... We're looking for people who have a strong sense of what they want to do, how they want to do it, and how it matters to the field they want to be part of. ... Just write as if you're talking to a reasonably intelligent family member about what you want to do in a PhD program." So I don't really know why these particular phrasings stuck out to me, but they did, and maybe they will for you, too? The upshot for me, in relation to your question, is that I completely underestimated the level of detail and specificity that I should pour into my SoP- even after a ton of research, workshops, etc - which I had thought was actually pretty detailed to begin. Having rummaged through so many threads, there are a million other helpful ways of saying things, but this email stuck to me like glue: GET MORE SPECIFIC. I took it and ran, and as daunting as it was to completely overhaul my SoP, it led me to really connect the dots of my interests, in a specific, spelled-out way, that I literally had not done before (forehead smack!), nevermind my amazingly-written previous drafts. In fact, based on this, I'd go so far as to say that I'm convinced that at least this program doesn't need to see anything aside from very specific, pointed research interests...in other words, the "fit" and "future" are basically out of my statement, which is now 100% "focus." Keep in mind that this hasn't yet proved successful for me, and that it is but one perspective. But it is a perspective that I am appreciating in a big way. I'm realizing that fit and future are, necessarily, far more speculative and beyond any single SoP writer's control - they are bet-hedging strategies that strike me as high risk/high reward and frankly even more mysterious than any elusive SoP formula, once you get right down to it. The thing that you can control, and nail, I'm now realizing, is the specificity of your research interests and methodologies, the ability to show a committee that "you have a strong sense of what you want to do, how you want to do it, and how it matters to the field you want to be a part of." That, and nothing else, is my new formula, because at least that, and nothing else, can and will be bullet-proof from here on out. One last note. Through the processing of redrafting in this vein, I noticed something really interesting. I found myself letting go of a really "well-written" SoP. Or, rather, I redefined what "well-written" meant, at least for this piece. Well-written, for those of us who can apparently write well but also who apparently cannot provide an admissions committee with what they are looking for, does not mean the same kind of well-written that goes into our writing samples or our creative endeavors or our social media posts or whatever. No, let go of all that. Keep it well-written, certainly - do all the usual stuff to turn passive voice back around into active, remove jargon, etc. etc., but let go of your poetry and just state, as clear as day, a project that you want to make into a dissertation, how that's going to work, and why it's going to matter. For writing snobs, it's going to suck (and this explains why I have always been dismayed by those "successful" SoPs that very kind souls have shared with me; I guess when you can't know how or why those are successful, you're still stuck in a different definition of "well-written." I would encourage all of us to reconsider "well-written" pronto, at least for SoP purposes). Yes, the writing will suck, according to our other standards for "well-written," but I have accepted this as a part of the game. I am also a little relieved and more than a little excited to have actually articulated, in detailed fashion for the first time ever, a proposed dissertation project.

toasterazzi, your mention of OSU has me wanting to PM you, is that alright by you?

That IS generous! Thanks!

I agree with Waco-Waco that this is super helpful, but how do you do it in 500 words?! I know that some programs say 500 words, others 1000 or 1500...others don't say a word count but say "2 pages single spaced" or whatever. But a bunch say 500 words, and it has always left me thinking, ok, no problem, but that just means that I basically can't incorporate much advice or substance...You've got 6 bullet points. If you broke that down into the 500 word model, we're looking at an average of 80-ish words per paragraph. That's just a big tweet, really. For whatever writing success I may have had, I've never quite been able to crack this genre, and I tip my hat to those of you who have.

Hey thanks to both of you, this is great...Yeah, I even went through pro-seminars and other workshops in my MA that helped us focus on each piece of a PhD app, and CV was definitely among the pieces that we workshopped. Anyway, I'll be sure to prepare something solid. Thanks again.

Hey everyone - just curious as I look through the requirements to apply to each program on my list, I am noticing that nobody is requesting submission of a CV or resume (I've spot checked about half a dozen schools just now). I had assumed that this would be an application requirement to go along with other pieces of documentation. Not only was I assuming that, but it feels weird not to be asked for one, and it opens the possibility that the things I'd want highlighted in resume form now need to be included in SoP form. I guess I'm wondering what others are doing when faced with an application checklist that doesn't mention CV or resume - are you submitting one anyway? Or are you putting that kind of information into your SoPs? It's especially interesting in light of some SoP advice I'd received that suggests that you can economize what info goes where based on the documents that the selection committee will be gathering (for example, how it's not necessary to mention your 4.0 GPA since they have your transcript, etc.). As a final vent/question, does it not seem a bit odd, even borderline unprofessional, not to have something like a CV or resume included with the rest of your documentation? We're kicked in the collective teeth about how competitive everything is, and I feel as though we're required to be hyper professionalized even to have a shot at admission, yet nobody wants to see our CVs? I don't get it. Thanks in advance for any feedback! Edit: Here's at least one place that want it, OSU: https://english.osu.edu/grad/ma-phd/prospective#How to Apply curriculum vitae/resume of no more than two pages with a clearly stated sentence at the beginning of the CV that declares your scholarly area of interest(s), for example: American literature and queer theory, 18th-century poetry, postcolonial theory and women writers.

Thanks, haltheincandescent, for this incredibly thoughtful reply. Much appreciated. You've pretty much reinforced what I'd been coming round to, and I guess in a sense I'm just processing the score. I knew immediately after taking it that I didn't do well, but hadn't prepared - emotionally, I guess - for having done so poorly. The reason I can't not apply to certain programs is indeed based on what I perceive to be incredible fit, not on a sense of obligation (I don't really have one of those). I know that I'm a strong applicant in other areas and my strength is in obscure-ish theory, to borrow your phrase, and these gaps in my canonical knowledge simply reflect what I have, and haven't, pursued. I'll have to retake the general GRE in November because my previous test was over 5 years ago, but back then I scored in the 99th percentile on verbal and maxed out the writing (bombed the math). I've got peer-reviewed publications and strong recommendations. The statement of purpose is always a work in progress but coming along. I'm one of those applicants that looked hard for ways to avoid the subject test but in the end, being honest about myself with programs that I thought I needed to apply to, sucked it up and gave it a shot. I guess the let down has more to do with feeling as though I could have just skipped that whole drama and gone straight to the rest of my list, which is now what it will be by default. I'll still give those schools that require it a try, but I can't really consider myself a serious contender. That's ok. Good wake-up call for me, on I go.

I'll just say my score because I haven't been able to figure out what to do with it - it's a 470. I took the test because of a small handful of programs that I couldn't bring myself to not apply to...with this score, though, do I follow through? I still have a longer list of programs that don't require it. What would others do? Thanks in advance.

Thanks, 'Terps. Will PM you soon.

All good, just curious. I'm debating whether to apply there. Thanks!

I'll take you up on that - tell me about Gerard Passannante. I love his writing. I see from the website that he's gone for this AY, but have you had interactions with him, and if so, what are they like?

I'm no lawyer but I've got some lawyer friends and from what I know of my lawyer friends, they don't need to be told about hard work, lol. Arco, I'm a sympathizer, and I've been rooting for you to get good information in this thread, so I'm glad you got some. And when it comes to "transferable" or "convertible" skills, that's also a bit overblown, since, as you rightly pointed out, you read the same stuff and do the same things with it. I get it. I'd go so far as to say that transferability is selling it short, to be honest. Your idea of controlling what you do with an identical skill set is not lost on me, even if the idea of "controlling your life" might seem to rub some the wrong way. Hey, it's a sensitive crowd. That said, I did wince just slightly when you mentioned working 70 hours a week as a lawyer thing but not an academic thing (or that those academics who do work those hours set their own schedules), and I was afraid you might get slaughtered for that. Glad it hasn't happened yet but, as a sympathizer, let me caution you that it could. That doesn't justify all the martyrdom you see here but just be aware that a 70 hour work week is nothing. And that's not really an academic thing or a lawyer thing but all kinds of things, across all sectors. Anyone pursuing a passion and succeeding at the highest levels of his or her respective game is going to be pulling some crazy hours, but hopefully they're not counting them. People working 40 hours or less? I honestly do not know these people. Do you? Are they succeeding at the highest levels of their game? Are they passionate? Are they controlling their lives? I honestly wouldn't know but I have a guess. And I'm including working parents and what have you... ...but, as I know that lawyers don't need to be told about hard work, I'll leave it there and hope that more helpful information along the lines of what you solicited keeps rolling in. Good luck, I mean it.

I agree with just about everything TakeruK has said, and it is very well put, and I appreciate its spirit. And here's the big "but": BUT, but: Isn't VM "providing unsolicited advice," too? Or if not, is that not one of the valid interpretations of what is going on? Or if not, is that not a part of what VM is doing, if not the whole enchilada? Or if not, is that not what some posters appear to be taking issue with? Or if not, is there not the sort of embedded possibility that the perception that VM's unsolicited advice - if that's maybe what it is - engrained in VM's approach that if we follow a similar approach that we'll run a circle and come back to commentary regarding "not providing unsolicited advice"? In other words, I agree that VM can and should post whatever he or she wants, but if we are affording this to VM, then shouldn't we afford the exact same (and by most accounts, abrasive) approach to the responders? Playing by the same rules is a tough deal, and I do not mean that sarcastically. I mean that in the most sincere, dire fashion. If we all follow zero-sum, self-interested logic, for example, we will all react to fear and mistrust with fear and mistrust, and the cycle will never be broken. But that doesn't mean that we can tell people not to put locks on their doors, or that sovereign nations cannot preemptively defend themselves by having a standing military, or that these nations cannot point nasty explosive things in suggestive directions, or whatever. This is the current logic of our world. TakeruK has defended it in favor of VM, it seems to me, without extending that same defense to VM's responders. Or maybe just much more bluntly: sure VM can be a provocateur - or a jerk. But then so can those who reply. Right? If we all act like each other we should expect that this will not be a pleasant conversation. And that's what we have, and maybe that's the point.