coffeeplease

Take Donald Asher with a grain of salt. I think he greatly overemphasizes the importance of narratives and "sticking out with a unique story" in his book.

Medievalmaniac, I really don't think that the SoP is the right place to explain your coursework, unless it has direct relevance to the narrative you're writing about your development. I just attached a sheet with all my applications called "Undergraduate Coursework in Literature" or "Relevant Coursework," and then divide it up into "English" and "French." Under each category, I had the course number, the actual full title, the prof, and my grade in it. That way they can cross-reference with my transcript if they want, but they have the important info that they'll really be mining my transcript for isolated for them already. And I didn't have to take up precious space in my SoP explaining them.

As for what I did in my SoP that I think worked, I have some perspective on that, having been roundly rejected two years ago and pretty decent success this round (though UVa and U Washington, what is UP?! Still waiting on them). I really think the difference between my two SoPs is the big thing that made the difference, as my numbers and other qualifications (and even most of my writing sample, though I edited it) are the same. So here's what I think made the difference, in three alliterative categories:

1. Focus. Like it or not, they want to be able to categorize you. You can have secondary interests, but they have to be clearly secondary and bear some relation to your main focus. Last time I tried to tell too many stories of my development, and there were too many directions I could go in. This was partially a reflection of where I was at the time, and honestly I think they were right to reject me straight out of undergrad - I needed some time to reflect, to think about what I actually wanted to do in the field. Now that I have, my SoP reflects that clearer sense of direction and purpose.

2. Fit. Everyone tells you this, but it's true. I spent a lot more time really researching profs on the websites, then looking up and scanning through a few key articles, and skimming through the courses they taught. It really gives you a better idea of whether their interests and methodologies ACTUALLY fit yours, or whether it just looks like that on paper. I then tailored my fit paragraph to show how multiple faculty members could support my research interests (this may be English-specific, as in other non-humanitites disciplines you are applying to work with one advisor). Also, if the department has a pet methodology, it's helpful to know that - they'll look for students who fit that bill. Interdisciplinary programs that faculty are involved in and subfield/methodologically-specific colloquia, etc. are also things to look for.

3. Future. This could vary, depending on how much of an academic past you have, but for me what helped was focusing discussing even my past towards showing how it formed a trajectory for the future. I've said in other places around here that the best advice I got for my SoP was that you should think about demonstrating that you are capable of conceiving of a larger project; whether or not you end up doing that project is irrelevant, as you probably won't and the adcomm is well aware of that - the point is that you are CAPABLE of conceiving of a future direction for yourself. I focused on telling a story (i.e. "I'm interested in the relationship to place in Modernist literature") and cutting all details of my past that didn't mesh with that. So by the end I was able to say look! What I discussed doing in paragraphs x (gloss of relevant coursework/advisors, focus), y (challenges and triumphs of writing my thesis and learning theory), and z (teaching, living different places) all feed into the project I'm proposing in this last paragraph (though the project was sufficiently broad so as not to pigeonhole me). I said that I wanted to go in certain different directions, but it was clear that it would be a continuation of my development, not starting anew. They want to see that you are capable of functioning independently as an academic (should be demonstrated by your past and by the fact that you can independently come up with good future directions), but that they have something to offer in terms of guiding you.

Hope that helps!

I just had a professor who sits on admissions committees look over my SOP.

My introduction was talking about how I liked to go to museums as a child and was fascinated by the ancient world. He said that starting out like this is a huge mistake. Obviously if you are applying to study archaeology at the graduate level, it's pretty much assumed that you're fascinated by the ancient world and probably enjoy museums. But so do lots of people. What makes you unique. Attempt to illustrate your passion for the field without really telling some kind of silly story about your childhood. This is also an approach that many people take, and if you really want a strong SOP you'll find a better, more mature, and more creative way to say it.

The next point is, whether or not to talk about the negatives on your application. I wrote mine this year mentioning them extremely briefly and moving on. My thought behind this was to simply focus heavily on all the points that make me a competitive applicant. However, some graduate programs explicitly say that your SOP is the place on your application to mention your negatives and why the committee should overlook them. Obviously, this should not be the focus of your SOP. What the committees are looking for here is growth and improvement above all. Do not make excuses for poor grades, weak GRE scores, or a spotty work record. Do, however, point out how you have grown, how the committee can see improvement, and then highlight the things that make you a fabulous candidate.

The last thing I will mention is also very important, particularly for PhDs. Make sure that you know who you are applying to study under, and what your project is. Demonstrate that you would fit into the department like a glove and that you read Dr. Octopus' latest article on the newest theory, etc. etc. etc. Also, have a concise project in mind. Remember, you're not married to this idea, but you need to show the committee that you can ask the right kind of questions concerning your proposed research and that the project is something that the faculty could help you on based off of their interests and previous work. Do not make this project a carbon-copy of something they have previously accomplished, but a project that complements the research they have already performed. It is also highly advisable, since your job as a PhD student is essentially to perform lots of independent research, to demonstrate that you are capable of performing independent research. Although you want to show that you are a good fit for the program, you do not want to appear as though your adviser will have to hold your hand for the next five years.

Hope that helps! I'm no expert, but these are simply my thoughts on the process.

I tried several hooks that were built on how I first discovered my field and when I knew I wanted to pursue a career in it; when I tell them in person people usually find them unusual and exciting, but in writing they didn't really flow without being overly long or trite. I ended up opening with several research questions I wanted to address in my future work and jumped right into why and how my past education prepared me for to do it. I ended up liking this intro better than any anecdote, because a) it gave my statement a professional feel right from the beginning, b ) it saved me space that I could use to talk more about my goals. I think a good research question will hook researchers much more than an anecdote -- especially since the anecdotes I had to tell weren't even half as exciting as the i-climbed-mt-everest-when-i-was-8 anecdotes you find in Asher's book.
I wrote the introduction paragraph after most of my statement was already written, and I spent more time working on it than on any other single paragraph. My statements had different lengths, and what finally helped things come together for me was working on the one with the strictest word limit - 500 words. When I started stripping down everything I'd written to the bare essentials, the "hooks" were the first thing to go and I had to be smart about using my space in order to cover everything in the prompt. When I got back to writing the longer statements (1000+ word limits), I found that even though I had more space now, I didn't need all of it. I was able to say everything I wanted very neatly and concisely in the shorter 500 words version and I liked how it looked. I ended up beefing up the description of my current projects and current/future interests, but I didn't touch the intro+past parts.
So I guess my point is, the intro is hard to write. Once you have a working version of your statement, step back and evaluate it critically. What does each word/sentence/paragraph contribute to your statement? If you can start reading the statement from the 2nd paragraph and not miss out on anything, then your intro isn't contributing enough. Conversely, you might find after you've written and re-written everything many times, that you have a good angle to begin with that forwards your plot. Give it time, it'll come to you in the end..

Actually, I don't think you really need to mention your dissatisfaction with the working world (which I can imagine could easily look like trying to "escape back into school" to an adcom).

I'd instead suggest you concentrate on telling the adcom what your career goals are and why you need to get your degree—and even better, why you need to study at their program—in order to achieve your career goals. If you express this strongly enough, you won't need to tell them you're dissatisfied with working life. It'll be implied.

I actually didn't list specific professor names in my SoP, and instead talked about general research trends and strengths of the program. I was advised by my DGS to be careful about dropping names, unless I really thoroughly understood the political climate of the department I was applying to. But, others feel just as strongly about the opposite approach. It also might vary by field.

You should in some way show that you're a strong fit for their program. Whether you do that by dropping names or in other ways is up to you.

I have heard that an SOP for a PhD should be 60% future (what you want to do) and 40% past (what you've done). We all want to talk about how great or inspiring our lives were to lead us up to this point, but you want to get INTO the program so you can keep moving forward.

Personally, I think you should lightly touch on the fact that you found out 9-to-5 work wasn't for you - tie it all back to the fact you want to continue the learning process, be intellectually stimulated by admittance into the PhD program, and be innovative with your ideas in the field, given proper training and support. Make it clear that your interpretation of higher education is not "drudgery," but creativity, progress, and optimism.

Granted, I am still working on mine as well, but I definitely have not written the bulk of it in one fell swoop. I've had the document on my computer for a few months now, only pulling it up when I feel especially motivated or if I happened to remember an awesome phrase / concept that I could work in there. Lucky that we have digital word processors that you can type whatever and drag it around afterwards. Maybe it would help to not write it beginning to end; just start typing, really get into the meat and potatoes of your interests, and you can edit it to your liking after.

Good luck!