margarets

Still put the work on your CV. You did it. If you need to prove it, you have other ways besides publication. (E.g. old documents or emails or notes.) See if you can get your LoR prospects to mention your capability re: research anyway, to whatever extent they can.

Thanks. My SoP does propose a specific project (the program asks for that, though I know from a previous grad that it's OK to change it a lot). I have a short paragraph explaining what it is, then another short one explaining why it's worthwhile. I actually really do think it is worthwhile! I think it's just nerves from the whole point-of-no-return moment that is imminent.

Within the next few days I must hit 'send' on the final bits of my application, including my SoP, and suddenly I feel like my thesis idea is the dumbest one EVER. It's basically about exploring options for dealing with a worst-case scenario. I'm afraid it's too doom-and-gloom, that it'll make me look like a crazed pessimist. That said, the worst-case scenario isn't all in my head. There is historical precedent (heck, there's even a show on TV right now about this scenario in a particular place) and no good reason to assume that the scenario wouldn't present itself again. It's just ... not very mainstream... I'm afraid of looking like a weirdo. (Though I am kind of a weirdo.) Is there a thread on these forums about weird thesis ideas? Where everything turned out OK in the end?

I understand the intent here, but isn't it premature to give advice when you are still waiting for the decisions?

Thanks TakeruK. This is in Ontario, through the Ontario Universities Application Centre. The online info isn't really clear about whether the electronic transcripts must be official, or what is meant by official. So you raise a good point. I'll follow up on that. Scanning my old reports would be much easier!

Has anyone else run into this? The school I'm applying to wants transcripts submitted electronically with the application, and then, if you are admitted, you submit transcripts in sealed-and-stamped envelopes. That doesn't seem so bad except: 1) The majority of my academic history is in-province, which means I can order (and pay for) electronic transcripts when submitting my application. The info comes out of a provincial database and goes directly to the school I'm applying to. It seems really dumb and wasteful to have to THEN order paper copies of the exact same info. The electronic info is probably more reliable anyway since it never passes through my hands. 2) I've got some out-of-province academic history, a couple semesters' worth, that isn't in the provincial database. To submit those transcripts electronically, I would have to order copies, scan them as PDFs, and submit them to the school. And then have paper copies still in their sealed envelopes to submit following admission to the program. Again, really dumb and wasteful. I can't get a straight answer from the admissions office re: if I really have to submit transcripts twice in this way. It's possible, since universities are so bureaucratic, but I'd like confirmation either way. Is this happening to anyone else?

Hey I never said I read more than you do. Nor did I say that my reading was limited to my field. Nor did I ever say that I ignore badly-written works, just that I can dismiss them if I want. Look at the "maybes" you threw at me: can choose to ignore works that don't suit your literary aesthetics trust that others will summarize them for you work on very mainstream issues While in your field: you can't make that assumption you also can't draw any link between writing and content field moves fast and I need to keep up with current publications don't work on problems where I can expect everything to be summarized in the first place WOW. Anyway, what's your take on this part of my post: As for problems that have already been solved, why wouldn't the good writers also study the unsolved problems? Why would I only have to suffer the bad writers to find out about them? Especially if they are important problems? Are there many cases of important research being done only by bad writers?

I might have to read them because I'm expected to be familiar with their work, but I can certainly dismiss them, i.e. think their work is weak, inconclusive, meaningless, etc. I read a LOT (no exaggeration) and I find it's pretty rare for good research to be badly written up. I don't think it follows that ignoring bad writing means missing crucial data or techniques or only covering problems that have already been solved. For one thing, "crucial" data and techniques would not be used only by bad writers while the good writers ignore them. If they're that crucial, many researchers would be looking into them. As for problems that have already been solved, why wouldn't the good writers also study the unsolved problems? Why would I only have to suffer the bad writers to find out about them? Especially if they are important problems?

"Historical preservation should not be thought of as empty historical sentimentality, a quaint romance for anything old regardless of what it looks like; rather it should be thought of as necessary to a rich phenomenological experience of a metropolis. The old buildings are concretizations of ideas, often of dead people, and if still walking by them and entering their preserved interiors excites us in some undeniably real way, this is not superficial retro-romanticization - it is dwelling in and through a built dialogue that transcends way beyond each of our individual temporal existences - a dialogue between living and dead, between this "autonomous" age, the ages it descended from, and the unknown ages that will rise from out of it. And we are completely enthralled in the dialogue - so completely that most of us hardly notice it thematically." This is the kind of thing I mean. Some disciplines lap this up, but I do not consider it good writing.

Bad writing irks me so much that I kind of would dismiss them. How can you can if the ideas are any good if you can't tell what they are because the writing doesn't make it reasonably clear? (I mean in general. In science there must be calculations, images, etc to go on.) Writing doesn't come easily for some, but people who get good grades in undergrad should be at least decent at straightforward, plain-style writing. I consider that part of the basic skill set for any professional, and certainly an academic. (Though certain disciplines seem to have a fetish for rambling, impenetrable writing.)

What I'm getting at is that the writing of the SoP should be straightforward if most of the thinking has been done. If an applicant honestly hasn't thought about their reasons, interests, goals, etc then yes, the well will be dry at writing-time.

I think it is as explicit as it can be given that schools get applications from all over the world, from people with very diverse backgrounds. What would more explicit directions look like? Honestly, I don't see what is so hard about this. 1) outlining your research interests - 100 wds 2) reasons for pursuing graduate study in [program] - 100 wds 3) outline a specific research project that you wish to conduct - 60 wds 4) potential supervisors whom you may want to work with - 40 wds 5) your preparation for the program through previous studies and work experience - 100 wds 6) your career objectives and how the program relates to them - 100 wds Just by answering the questions posed in the list above, you've got the bare bones of a first draft. If an applicant doesn't really have an answer to those questions, they should reflect on their reasons for going to grad school in the first place. If their real reasons are that they don't know what else to do, their parents are pressuring them, they want the status associated with an advanced degree, or similar, then they need to - essentially - lie. I suspect that is where some people get stuck - trying to guess at what lies are likely to convince adcomms. "Boiling down one's entire background into a 5-line paragraph" isn't really the task at hand, because one's "entire" background is not relevant. You discuss only the parts that are relevant to your proposed course of study. And since most people apply right from undergrad, how much background do they really have to discuss? I'm in my 40s and have no problem cutting out a ton of stuff.

There are so many questions on this sub-forum that are essentially "what should I write?" that I have started to wonder what the heck is wrong with these admissions people for not giving applicants some basic directions. I'm applying to just one program, and they are very clear about what to cover: "a written statement of approximately 500 words outlining your research interests and reasons for pursuing graduate study in [program]. Your statement should outline a specific research project that you wish to conduct, potential supervisors whom you may want to work with, your preparation for the program through previous studies and work experience, and your career objectives and how the program relates to them." That'll easily take up 500 words so there is no room for personal history or whatever. It's got to make the process easier on the adcomms too. I would have thought that the above excerpt is basically what every adcomm wants to know. So, do other programs just leave it wide open?

What was unethical about your research? I don't quite see it in the info you have provided.

I've been thinking about the PoIs' perspective in this process. It makes sense that they get loads of these inquiries, but only a fraction will end up as students in the program, let alone one of their advisees. So I can see how they wouldn't want to invest much time in these exchanges, or even appear to commit to taking on students, at this stage. I think the reply you got is fine. I'd just reply with thanks, keep contacting other PoIs, see where it leads. Once a school accepts you they will get serious about the advising arrangements.

For the school you realllllly want, I say: Pick the bestest, most relevant (like 1 or 2) of these experiences and achievements and work them into your SoP somehow. Shoehorn them in!

Thanks iowaguy, you raised some good points. It's for a master's, I'm pretty sure this person is taking students next year (or could direct me to other PoIs if they aren't), I'm not looking for an RA spot or funding, since I'll be doing the program part-time while working full-time, and I'll apply to the program either way (I doubt this PoI would actually tell me not to apply though).

So I've scoped a potential advisor and am ready to make contact. But in drafting the email, I kind of hit a wall: what do I really want from this person at this stage? What is appropriate? Here's my if-I-could-have-whatever-I-wanted list: 1) to meet this person and see if we would even get along (I'm in the same city so a meeting is possible, practically speaking) 2) to suss out how interested they would be in my thesis topic 3) to learn more about the program, get a feel for it, what they think are the essentials to doing well, what are the danger zones/problems that crop up (the kind of stuff they never put on the website) I'm not sure I can actually say that, but I expect that most PoIs kind of know that this is real purpose for pre-application contact. Or can I just say that? If not, what else would I say?

My two cents: don't go there, don't hand them a reason to reject you. Same as applying for a job where you don't quite have all the qualifications. Focus on your strengths.

I googled "gpa round truncate" and found this: http://www.murraystate.edu/Academics/RegistrarsOffice/Registration/Grades.aspx They say you should truncate. I don't know if that is standard advice. Try asking the admissions office at the school you are applying to. Also, in your SoP, you could summarize the situation as "caring full-time for seriously ill partner". I do wonder how someone so young could end up in a relationship so serious that they become the full-time caregiver for their partner. Or why you didn't look into taking time off your studies to do so. Most universities have some form of compassionate leave for just these types of situations. I'm totally armchair-quarterbacking here, but it is a curious situation.

I would definitely mention the ESL certificate. It's highly relevant and shows your commitment to ongoing learning.

OK then, here's how I would approach it: --the honours, awards and extra-curriculars go in a list, which will be easier to read & absorb and will use fewer characters, but put the list near the end then, list your reasons for --choosing GaTech specifically --wanting to work with Profs X and Y --wanting to pursue graduate research, i.e. what future goals do you have that make graduate research necessary or desired? THEN use those lists to write the SoP, build the SoP around your reasons. So far, I don't quite see all your reasons for pursuing this particular path, other than you really like this field of study (which is certainly very important!). I wouldn't worry too much about making this your own story because that will be apparent from the info in the various lists. No one else will have the exact same history or reasons or plans. Err on the side of being more businesslike rather than more personal.

Just my opinion, but I think the second version is still too flowery. I wouldn't say it lacks substance. It's more that the substance is hard to find among all the flowers. Maybe try writing a bullet-point, bare bones version first. Don't even worry about style yet, just focus on your strengths, reasons for choosing the field, etc. On another read I noticed that your SoP is largely in the past tense, kind of like you are telling the story of your journey of how you came to apply to this school. Try to make it more present- and future-oriented (which is really vague advice, I know! sorry). What specific instructions has the school given for the SoP? My program is pretty specific about this, so I don't have much room to play with anyway.

Maybe your resume? Many schools request a resume or CV. Otherwise I would mention only the most relevant stuff in your SoP, i.e. anything related to your research interests or abilities, or how an experience led you to pursue graduate studies. You might have to just leave some stuff out.

I bolded the bits that struck me as too emotional or cliche or purple-prose-y. I think you need only one comment about your desire or passion for the field. Tighten up the parts where you mention your PoIs. It looks like you are trying to prove that you have looked up their research but otherwise just saying you would like to work with them. I think something like "my reading of Prof X's and Y's work in blahblah indicates a good fit with my research interests in yadda" would be fine. I favour plain, direct writing, especially in a professional context. Read George Orwell for an example of brilliant plain-style writing. His rules are: Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print. Never use a long word where a short one will do. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out. Never use the passive where you can use the active. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous. from http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit