Would it be weird/bad/unwise to start my SOP like this?

[noodles.galaznik]

I've been thinking about how I wanted to start off my sop, and I really think that I want to avoid the "ever since I was an embryo, I've loved blahblahblah...". I feel like it's generally assumed that if you want to go to grad school you're a bit of a nerd and you've held those interests for a long time.

I was considering starting off talking about why I want to go to grad school, and, here's where it might be a strange thing to do-- I was considering briefly mentioning last season's rejection. I think that sad, sad, rejection letter I got was what helped me improve my application. It made me really step back and take a good look at my application and how I could improve it, it made me really think long and hard about what I wanted to do and why I wanted to go to grad school in the first place, and it's given me a crazy amount of drive and motivation to make myself a stronger applicant. I've brought up my GRE score, I'm working to get to know profs better for LOR, brushing up on my Latin, I'm taking background courses I need, and I've been doing volunteer research-- things I wouldn't have been driven to do if I hadn't been rejected.

Good idea, or awfully awful??

[lyonessrampant]

I think if you're applying to the same schools you might mention it and how it made you a stronger applicant, but if you didn't apply to the school before, I wouldn't mention it.

[natsteel]

Exactly. Definitely only mention it if you're reapplying to a school which rejected last year.

[newms]

I don't like this approach. Just state your strengths as you would even if you hadn't been rejected the year before. The SoP should really be about your research interests and how your experience and skills have prepared you to succeed at what it is that you want to research in grad school. Ideally you want your SoP (especially for a PhD program) to be about 60% on your future (ie what it is you want to research in grad school, your career plans and why you would be a good fit for that school and vice-versa. If you were to take the approach you're suggesting, I fear it would take up valuable space on a topic that's probably not going to help you at all. I agree with the others above, that you really should only mention that you're applying for the second time if you're re-applying to the same school - and even then, keep it brief. Just my $0.02. Good luck!

[noodles.galaznik]

Thanks everyone! I am applying to the same school I did last year. And when I mean include it, I was thinking to just mention/sum it up in one sentence.

[ZeeMore21]

I actually got rejected last year by the same school that I will be attending this year. I treated my rejection as though it never happened. It was a new admissions cycle and I was competing with a different group of applicants...I saw no reason to bring up a prior admissions cycle. Between the rejection and the time I re-applyed to the school, I definitely felt like I had grown both academically and professionally, and I think my personal statement reflected this naturally. There was no need to actually state that the previous rejection inspired me.

[runonsentence]

I can see why you're tempted to show an adcom that you've overcome something crushing, but here's why I'd still recommend you resist the impulse, even though you applied to this program before: I think that too many people get their SoPs bogged down with trying to explain away what they see as imperfections in their profile.

While the SoP is the ideal place to explain something glaring to an adcom, you really want the document (as others mentioned) to be a positive one that focuses on your accomplishments and potential. You don't need to tell an adcom why you're better than a rejection—you should tell them why you're a kickass applicant, period.

[noodles.galaznik]

Thanks! I think I'll take the advice that suggests that I act like the previous rejection never happened! But would it still be a good idea to start the whole thing right off with why I want to go to grad school, and why I would be an awesome student instead of the typical "this is why I love ______, and I've loved _____ since forever!!"??

[runonsentence]

I think it's fine to state why you want to go to grad school, but only if by "grad school" you mean "graduate-level study in my chosen research area." Make sure you're going beyond why you'd be a good graduate student; you need to tell them why you'll be a good ___ graduate student. (What do you understand your discipline to be? What do you think it takes to succeed in the discipline, and how do you see yourself doing that?)

There's no one way to start an SoP, so you're not confined to starting with "why I love my discipline" if that's not what feels right for you. For instance, I've liked the way that several samples I consulted opened, by stating research interests. (E.g., "Teaching, in addition to the reading, thinking, and administrative work I’ve done in rhetoric and composition over the past year, has confirmed for me that this is the discipline where I can best combine my interests in pedagogy, rhetoric’s social and cultural implications, and textual analysis. ")

But really, I'd honestly worry about the ending last. I'd work on getting a draft (no matter how awful) down on paper, and then see what feels most natural or right for the opening.

Edited July 28, 2011 by runonsentence

[ThePoorHangedFool]

In my opinion, and I need to mention first and foremost that I haven't had the graduate program application experience yet. Hence, I've never applied to the same school multiple times, so I hope and encourage any users who think my advice is misinformed (or rather, blatantly uninformed) to quote from this post so that I, too, can learn about the tactics in SoP composition.

Basically, it would seem to me that it could potentially be very useful to keep a copy of your SoPs from last year right next to you (or open in windows on your monitor, etc.) while you write your new ones for this cycle. While obviously much of the content will presumably be the same, at least in regards to your specifics about what you want to study and research.

However (this is where I could very well be mistaken in my assumptions), it could be a good idea to review the faculties of the schools to which you're applying again this year, essentially as if you're doing so for the first time. Unless the rejection letter you received from a particular school listed exactly each (or "the" reason) why it didn't think you were the right fit for its program, and said list didn't cite anything remotely close to there being issues with one or all of the faculty members in whom you'd expressed in your SoP, it's possible that professors you'd thought would be the ones whose interests and/or specialization matched yours ended up not seeing eye-to-eye with those opinions during app review.

If you think that might actually be the case with any program, perhaps try first looking at the faculty working in the same general field as that in which you're hoping to pursue (i.e., English Lit, Comparative Lit, Rhetoric, etc.) and read through all the information given for each one (some programs' websites will be more useful than others for this). You might be surprised at the professors whose primary interest or subject of research is nothing closely related to your own, yet whose minor interests are seemingly just as unrelated to their own focuses (and this situation, therefore, sometimes could end up giving you a faculty member that would prefer to mentor a student whose research would allow him or her to become more involved with the concentration often forced onto the backburner).

Does that make any sense? Not conceptually, but in the way I tried to explain it... Sometimes I lose my own trains of thought, and the resulting posts/paragraphs/essays/etc. are at best a string of non sequiturs to anyone but me....

[ThePoorHangedFool]

Best example of faculty listings that outline areas of interest and research (linked names give more details):

http://englishcomplit.unc.edu/people/faculty/alpha#p

(UNC Chapel Hill)

[noodles.galaznik]

yes, it did! I've been reviewing faculty profiles and publications a lot more closely this year, so that will definitely help. I think part of my problem last year was 1. I didn't really know why I wanted to go to grad school 2. I didn't do jack squat to make my app the best it could be and 3. my research interests were really unclear and unfocused--not really refined enough for grad school.

I talked to the prof I applied to work with said she didn't pick my app because 1. my LOR all said really good things about me (but they weren't "gushing" and "glowing"...eh, now I know, right?) 2. I wasn't super clear on why University X was my top choice 3. She could tell my research interests aligned with her's, but they weren't fully developed and 4. I needed some classes to strengthen my background. Luckily, she's given me a lot of feedback on my app, and has helped me out quite a bit.

[ThePoorHangedFool]

4. I needed some classes to strengthen my background.

This worries me about my own application material; I can't afford more classes for a better background while I'm already having to save most of what I'm getting paid at work to pay for graduate school (if and when I actually get accepted, though alternatively I would have "mad bank," as it were, if I simply spent three or four years applying but never was appealing enough to any program ever...).

What sort of courses did she think you needed? If you're heeding that advice, what are you thinking about taking, and where? (You don't need to disclose where you live or the exact name of an institution, I rather mean "where" as in a community college, huge/average public university near where you live, etc.)

My undergrad courses encompass a wide variety of periods in Anglo-American literature, but with the exception of maybe one or two poets from a class I took my sophomore year there, none of the English classes even offered there went beyond 1975, maybe 1980 at the latest. I've done my own research on what literature from the last thirty years is used in courses at logical schools, where there are classes titled "Lit from the 2000s." However, I tend to read critical essays/longer works that I plan to incorporate into my own work from primarily the past 30 years by principle alone *(please, no one quote that statement and explain to me why I'm wrong in any of it. I don't only read criticism from 1980-2011, you've misread my sentence if that is your argument; I don't need advice on this subject....sorry to be abrupt, but if my school did one thing right it was research techniques, and I recently had a rather heated quarrel with a girl who also just got her B.A. in English, and seemed not to understand anything I said about this matter)*.

SORRY FOR THAT DIGRESSION. I HAVE A LOT OF FEELINGS.

Essentially what I hope to hear from you and other users is either whether this could hurt my application (my focus and intended concentration for research doesn't involve literature written later than 1950 aside from criticism/theoretical resources). Also, if anyone thinks it could very well be damaging, or just has a good list already made up (from a past course, planned research focus, etc.) of works that any potential English graduate student should read and/or be familiar with written ideally since 1990-95 (the later the better), I'd appreciate seeing that as well.

Edited July 30, 2011 by ThePoorHangedFool

[ThePoorHangedFool]

Oh, well besides the obvious, which is that I'm clearly scatterbraining for the win tonight, I also forgot to mention in my earlier reply to you that if you haven't been doing so already, Google is a good place to research graduate faculty (Google Scholar can be more direct, but can also omit results that are clearly relevant occasionally, for whatever reason, and that do show up in a basic Google search).

[noodles.galaznik]

This worries me about my own application material; I can't afford more classes for a better background while I'm already having to save most of what I'm getting paid at work to pay for graduate school (if and when I actually get accepted, though alternatively I would have "mad bank," as it were, if I simply spent three or four years applying but never was appealing enough to any program ever...).

What sort of courses did she think you needed? If you're heeding that advice, what are you thinking about taking, and where? (You don't need to disclose where you live or the exact name of an institution, I rather mean "where" as in a community college, huge/average public university near where you live, etc.)

My undergrad courses encompass a wide variety of periods in Anglo-American literature, but with the exception of maybe one or two poets from a class I took my sophomore year there, none of the English classes even offered there went beyond 1975, maybe 1980 at the latest. I've done my own research on what literature from the last thirty years is used in courses at logical schools, where there are classes titled "Lit from the 2000s." However, I tend to read critical essays/longer works that I plan to incorporate into my own work from primarily the past 30 years by principle alone *(please, no one quote that statement and explain to me why I'm wrong in any of it. I don't only read criticism from 1980-2011, you've misread my sentence if that is your argument; I don't need advice on this subject....sorry to be abrupt, but if my school did one thing right it was research techniques, and I recently had a rather heated quarrel with a girl who also just got her B.A. in English, and seemed not to understand anything I said about this matter)*.

SORRY FOR THAT DIGRESSION. I HAVE A LOT OF FEELINGS.

Essentially what I hope to hear from you and other users is either whether this could hurt my application (my focus and intended concentration for research doesn't involve literature written later than 1950 aside from criticism/theoretical resources). Also, if anyone thinks it could very well be damaging, or just has a good list already made up (from a past course, planned research focus, etc.) of works that any potential English graduate student should read and/or be familiar with written ideally since 1990-95 (the later the better), I'd appreciate seeing that as well.

Well, I'm interested in molecular anthropology, so that means I needed to have a pretty strong background in genetics AND biological anthropology--neither of which I had. So, getting rejected for that reason wasn't surprising. I was a double major so I didn't really have a lot of wiggle room to take a bunch of extra coursework, and my undergrad institution is hardcore into archaeology, and a lot of the biological courses that would really help me out just weren't offered while I was there. While I had a double major, two years of research experience, I was totally lacking in the background/coursework department. So, I'm taking a few genetics courses this semester, and next semester I'm hoping to take osteology, bioarchaeology, human variation, or some sort of bioanth course to really boost that weak area. I'm actually taking courses at my top choice university, which is good because I can get a feel for the department and my POI, and they'll know me.

As far as hurting your application, I think it might if you don't have a lot of background in your area of interest. I know that it hurt me a lot--it make my application weaker! My research advisor did give me some advice though--he said that if you can't take courses because of time, money, etc, then do your best to teach yourself about the field, or do volunteer work related to it.

PS: I see you're in TN--where at? You can PM me if you'd like!

[ThePoorHangedFool]

Make sure you're going beyond why you'd be a good graduate student; you need to tell them why you'll be a good ___ graduate student. (What do you understand your discipline to be? What do you think it takes to succeed in the discipline, and how do you see yourself doing that?)

These questions (which runonsentence phrased well, I think, for this more broad-subject forum, and both of which you definitely want to answer in a "good SoP") should provoke some type of response in your SoP that distinguishes you as a focused, determined, and eager-to-learn (especially from "X" University's faculty members, Y, W, and Z!) academic (prepubacademic? is that disgusting?).

A similar question that, if you do have an answer for it, could be good for professors to read is how your proposed research is ​useful/beneficial/imperative/ , etc., for the literary world at large (you can narrow this, obviously, depending on your personal focus).

-Why do others need to read what you have to say about this?

-How will your potential research findings affect the way the subject is currently perceived?

These are GRANDIOSE statements...or statements of grandeur, perhaps?...that I wrote in that way to give you the broadest idea of what I'm talking about. If you're arguing against almost every work of criticism yet published on a specific writer or work, say why your view is necessary as an available lens through which other scholars concerned with ["whatever you're talking about"] in order for a comprehensive understanding of ["that"] to be attained.

[ThePoorHangedFool]

As far as hurting your application, I think it might if you don't have a lot of background in your area of interest.

That's not quite what I meant; three courses on Shakespeare has given me enough background, and because it is my top interest in terms of specialization by writer, I've read plenty on my own and have more than sufficient background to know I want to keep pursuing it. I wouldn't be wasting time with applications if I didn't have enough background, since I likely wouldn't know what I wanted to study if that were the case : ). My "writing sample," actually my thesis from this year, is currently around 40 or 50 pages long, and it centers around one of Shakespeare's long poems...that'll be something I'll have to figure out at some point, since each section uses other various works and different critical lenses, so I guess it will depend on the school...

And you seem to suggest somehow that perhaps you're also in Tennessee? PM this; one of the best features of TGC is anonymity in essentially all areas a user desires...

[noodles.galaznik]

That's not quite what I meant; three courses on Shakespeare has given me enough background, and because it is my top interest in terms of specialization by writer, I've read plenty on my own and have more than sufficient background to know I want to keep pursuing it. I wouldn't be wasting time with applications if I didn't have enough background, since I likely wouldn't know what I wanted to study if that were the case : ). My "writing sample," actually my thesis from this year, is currently around 40 or 50 pages long, and it centers around one of Shakespeare's long poems...that'll be something I'll have to figure out at some point, since each section uses other various works and different critical lenses, so I guess it will depend on the school...

And you seem to suggest somehow that perhaps you're also in Tennessee? PM this; one of the best features of TGC is anonymity in essentially all areas a user desires...

Oh, sorry! I was exhausted when I replied, so my reading and comprehension skills really weren't the greatest. And yes, I'll PM you about that!

[Kitkat]

To the OP, I don't think that you need to mention that you got rejected last year. Just explain that you have the focus to do it, show all the work that you have done in the past year, stating that you realized that what you had done was not enough(without necessarly putting in those terms) and move on.

I've been thinking about how I wanted to start off my sop, and I really think that I want to avoid the "ever since I was an embryo, I've loved blahblahblah...". I feel like it's generally assumed that if you want to go to grad school you're a bit of a nerd and you've held those interests for a long time.

I am having a similar issue with my SoP. I am still struggling with that whole not wanting to do the cliche thing in it. But it sounds like I am starting off with something similar anyway. It's currently much more of a "when I was little, i didnt want to be exactly this, I wanted to be that....and after much going farther away, came back and found this as a much better fit", and have tried to go into a "and here is why" kind of essay.

[ZeeMore21]

To the OP, I don't think that you need to mention that you got rejected last year. Just explain that you have the focus to do it, show all the work that you have done in the past year, stating that you realized that what you had done was not enough(without necessarly putting in those terms) and move on.

I am having a similar issue with my SoP. I am still struggling with that whole not wanting to do the cliche thing in it. But it sounds like I am starting off with something similar anyway. It's currently much more of a "when I was little, i didnt want to be exactly this, I wanted to be that....and after much going farther away, came back and found this as a much better fit", and have tried to go into a "and here is why" kind of essay.

I still don't think the OP has to include the fact that last year's rejection made him/her understand that he/she "wasn't enough." Not getting into the program last year doesn't mean the OP wasn't good enough, but perhaps his/her strengths/qualifications weren't strongly articulated. With this in mind, it may not be helpful to spend anytime in the personal statement addressing weaknesses. The personal statement should really be about explaining why you are qualified for the program, and you should give strong evidence supporting this argument.

[ThePoorHangedFool]

It's currently much more of a "when I was little, i didnt want to be exactly this, I wanted to be that...."

Obviously, it's your SoP, and you should therefore write it however best you personally think it expresses you and your goals/passions/etc. most accurately and fervently.

However, I feel that I have to tell you one bit of advice I've never heard stated otherwise from any source (and in this rare case, both the trusted and even the most untrusted sources agree): Neither any admissions committee nor any faculty member from any school wants to read the words "when I was [young/little/a child/in elementary school/etc.]" at any point during an applicant's SoP. They don't care about your childhood. You did nothing productive as far as academia is concerned while in the womb (or in the playpen). I've even heard stories from faculty about quite simply throwing out an application if the SoP includes this sort of reference (I have a bad feeling these stores are true, though I of course can't verify anything myself).

It seems to me that at this point in the twenty-first century, when books on how to do everything have evolved into DVDs which have evolved into blogs and forums...and on and on, many faculty members might see going about your SoP in this way as practically a slap in the face to all the available knowledge and resources there are to us as applicants today (most of which having been definitely unavailable to them as applicants, for instance).

Just a thought.

Edited July 30, 2011 by ThePoorHangedFool

[ZeeMore21]

I am having a similar issue with my SoP. I am still struggling with that whole not wanting to do the cliche thing in it. But it sounds like I am starting off with something similar anyway. It's currently much more of a "when I was little, i didnt want to be exactly this, I wanted to be that....and after much going farther away, came back and found this as a much better fit", and have tried to go into a "and here is why" kind of essay.

I agree with The Hanged Fool here...I would definitely cut out the "I wanted to do ------ ever since I was a child." It's a big no-no from what I have heard from my own advisers..members of the admissions committee will more than likely throw away your application if you start your personal statement with that line. Wanting to study something since childhood doesn't really prove that you are actually capable of studying that subject at the graduate level, or working in that field as a scholar/professor. Plus, that line just sounds way too cliche/juvenile to be included in a serious document such as a personal statement for graduate level work.

Edited July 31, 2011 by ZeeMore21

[noodles.galaznik]

I agree with The Hanged Fool here...I would definitely cut out the "I wanted to do ------ ever since I was a child." It's a big no-no from what I have heard from my own advisers..members of the admissions committee will more than likely throw away your application if you start your personal statement with that line. Wanting to study something since childhood doesn't really prove that you are actually capable of studying that subject at the graduate level, or working in that field as a scholar/professor. Plus, that line just sounds way too cliche/juvenile to be included in a serious document such as a personal statement for graduate level work.

Every professor I've spoken with about writing a SOP has really stressed that this is not a great way to start the piece out. One called it too "folksy", and my research advisor told me that every time someone talks about how they grew up watching Indiana Jones or they loved digging around in the dirt when they were a kid he seriously questions if they know what graduate studies entail and if they really have any clue what archaeology involves. Plus, he said that it's so cliche and overdone, and it does nothing to set you apart. I've been told to start off talking about why you want to pursue and advanced degree and your research interests and goals--don't waste time talking about something that has nothing to do with your capability to pursue an advanced degree.