Hey everyone! It's me, a restless 2020 applicant back with more questions. I'm trying to decide between two writing samples, and I'm really torn between what my head and my gut are saying.
I'm deciding between two research papers, neither of which really shows off my language skills. My field of interest is modern European military history, specifically World War II Italy, with a focus on the intersection of technology and society.
Paper 1 is about Italy, which better showcases my research interests. The content is there, but the writing needs work as I wrote it about a year ago. Additionally, it isn't my strongest use of primary sources--I'd say it's a 50/50 split of secondary and primary sources at most. I would plan to add another primary source viewpoint in the revision.
Paper 2 is more recent and definitely my better work. This paper is focused on Eastern Europe, so I'd have to make the case for my focus on Italy in the SOP. It's very primary-source heavy because that's what the assignment asked for, though I engage with a few modern historians. It definitely relates to my research interests, but doesn't present them in the same way as the first paper.
In my case is it better to use a stronger paper which is less related to my field of interest, or a paper that really lays out my interests but will need significant work to bring it up to my current levels of writing and historical understanding?