How to tactfully mention that I worked full time and paid my way through my MA

[cooperstreet]

Does anyone have any suggestions/examples about how to address the fact that I worked part time, then full time when I was earning my MA?

[Eigen]

It depends, is there a particular reason you want to bring this up?

Was the work experience related to your field, do you have bad grades that you want to explain?

[cooperstreet]

The reason I want to bring it up is because I think it shows character when someone can work full time and complete a graduate degree. My work was unrelated to my academic interests and did not adversely affect my grades, but I think it says something when someone works to go to school rather than have their parents foot the bill.

[Eigen]

I would say that it's not uncommon enough to have worked/paid your way through graduate school to mention.

If the work experience was not relevant, and you don't have any bad grades that you need to explain, I can't see there being any benefit to mentioning it in your application.

[ali8]

I think that you should go and mention that. As you said, it show a good character. I myself mentioned working part time (in addition

to working full time) after graduation (But I am applying to Masters, not PhD, I do not know if that matters)

[runonsentence]

I'm still with Eigen. I don't think that talking about an outside job during a master's does much to strengthen your profile as an applicant—first because adcoms expect all incoming students to be hardworking, and second because the primary purpose behind the SoP genre is to demonstrate one's potential as a scholar in the field. Discussing a full-time job that isn't relevant to your research doesn't serve this purpose, so I wouldn't recommend you include it.

Additionally, putting emphasis on outside work and on one's ability to balance an outside job with academics might imply to the adcom that you plan to continue dong so during your PhD, which I think most adcoms would actually see as a negative attribute. First of all, many (if not most) programs have rules in place that limit (if not prohibit) students from taking on additional jobs. Second of all, faculty and advisors at your future programs want to see you putting the PhD first, and in my department it's expected for PhDs to use "down time" like summers and breaks to get caught up on other projects they can't get to during the school year (like publications and research projects unrelated to coursework, or a head start on exam reading).

My adviser understood when I took part time jobs as a master's student, but now that I'm a PhD student she expects me to buckle down and focus on my PhD, not split my time between it and outside work. Thus, an argument about my ability to split my time wouldn't have helped my admission into the PhD program.

Edited October 8, 2011 by runonsentence

[iamincontrolhere-haig]

I can't fathom an admissions committee interpreting the fact that one worked and paid his or her own way through school in a negative light. That one pursued work and school simultaneously doesn't say anything about plans for the future, but rather evinces a commitment to continuing education in difficult circumstances. It also demonstrates maturity and independence. You should show, not tell in your SOP--and what better way to demonstrate your work ethic?

I wouldn't make a big deal about it or write an entire paragraph on the subject, but I think tactfully mentioning it is a great idea. If you devote a paragraph to your experiences in the MA program, just slide it in somewhere as long as it doesn't come off as pompous or arrogant! Even if it doesn't help your application, the notion that it could hurt your chances seems ludicrous.

As far as what this thread is actually about--suggestions and examples--I think it depends on how you structure your SOP. My (probably pointless) advice would be to try mentioning it a few different ways and see which one you like best!

[cooperstreet]

Yeah I think briefly mentioning it is a good idea. And frankly, if someone interprets the fact that I supported myself and my family while going to graduate school to be a knock against me, then I really don't want to work with them or attend their program.

[Sigaba]

I agree with Eigen and Runonsentence: the work should be mentioned only if was relevant to the applicant's field of study.

I can't fathom an admissions committee interpreting the fact that one worked and paid his or her own way through school in a negative light.

It might, if the tone of the disclosure suggests that the applicant has a chip on his or her shoulder. For example:

And frankly, if someone interprets the fact that I supported myself and my family while going to graduate school to be a knock against me, then I really don't want to work with them or attend their program.

[cooperstreet]

Sigaba,

I think my statement that you quoted is a sentiment that many people would share. Obviously a post on a internet forum is going to be different from an SOP.

[runonsentence]

Obviously a post on a internet forum is going to be different from an SOP.

Yes, but I'd argue that the very inclusion of it in the SoP is rhetorical.

I'm not saying the fact that you have held a job to, you know, eat and things, is going to hurt someone's personal opinion of you. But telling a committee that you held a job while a master's student isn't going to help you make a case for yourself as a scholar in the SoP unless it's somehow related to your field or you're going into a field that requires/values professional preparation (e.g., MBA). And if you're in a field where funding at the master's level is common, it only draws more attention to the fact that you weren't funded.

[Jbarks]

Just to add one or two things. First, I also worked full time during my MA. I am not including it in my SOP because it's not relevant to my research. I work in finance, and I would like a PhD in English. Yeah, not even closely related. However, as I've been filling out applications, I've noticed that most schools ask you to cite any work experience within the past two years or so. The fact that you worked during your program will show up in your apps, so someone on the adcom may possibly take note of it.

[Eigen]

Just to add one or two things. First, I also worked full time during my MA. I am not including it in my SOP because it's not relevant to my research. I work in finance, and I would like a PhD in English. Yeah, not even closely related. However, as I've been filling out applications, I've noticed that most schools ask you to cite any work experience within the past two years or so. The fact that you worked during your program will show up in your apps, so someone on the adcom may possibly take note of it.

This is a very good point. I put all my work experience in my CV, something I'm sure you've done as well. The adcom will see it there.

[Sigaba]

And if you're in a field where funding at the master's level is common, it only draws more attention to the fact that you weren't funded.

Moreover, if one teases things out, the fact may actually raise skeptical questions about an applicant's character, personality, and commitment to the field of study.

[iamincontrolhere-haig]

Moreover, if one teases things out, the fact may actually raise skeptical questions about an applicant's character, personality, and commitment to the field of study.

As is the case with most items in the statement of purpose--and as you said above--it probably all depends on the tone and delivery. It's not about what you say, but how you say it. I doubt very much that anyone reviewing a statement of purpose that says something along the lines of "I have a commitment to learning and scholarship at the highest levels: while working full time, I completed a prize-winning master's thesis and graduated at the top of my class" would be skeptical about the applicant's character or personality. If, on the other hand, the applicant wrote something like "unlike most of the other applicants whose files you will review, mommy and daddy didn't pay for my education," that would obviously raise red flags.

Explained briefly (i.e., in a subordinate clause of a sentence that makes a bigger point about one's background or education) and properly, I still see no reason whatsoever not to mention it. Indeed, depending on the field--say, labor history--it could be beneficial. Of course, if that was the case, you would obviously want to weave it into a broader narrative about why you want to study labor history!

My feeling is, it's not going to make your SOP, but it's not going to break it either.

[Eigen]

And since most SoPs are length limited, if something isn't going to make your SoP, why put it in?

As was said, if the work area is relevant to your field, put it in- if you're in labor history, the work becomes at least partially relevant.

The implicit assumption that the OP is making is that it would make him stand out for other applicants that he worked to support his family while he was in school. I don't think that's a reasonable assumption to make at this level, as I think most people applying to graduate school are less likely to be there on "Mommy and Daddy's dime".

Additionally, many academics *do* look down on people working full time while doing a graduate degree. You may not agree with it, but there are several threads on the CHE forums with people asking about working while in graduate school (granted, many are talking about PhDs, not Masters), and the near-universal response is "Don't do it!"- either get funded or buckle down and get through it as fast as possible.

Also, I think

The reason I want to bring it up is because I think it shows character when someone can work full time and complete a graduate degree. My work was unrelated to my academic interests and did not adversely affect my grades, but I think it says something when someone works to go to school rather than have their parents foot the bill.

Says a lot about how the OP views it, and that's going to slant how they bring it up. It's not quite the extreme you suggest, but it's definitely heading in that direction.

Edited October 13, 2011 by Eigen

[Sigaba]

As is the case with most items in the statement of purpose--and as you said above--it probably all depends on the tone and delivery. It's not about what you say, but how you say it. I doubt very much that anyone reviewing a statement of purpose that says something along the lines of "I have a commitment to learning and scholarship at the highest levels: while working full time, I completed a prize-winning master's thesis and graduated at the top of my class" would be skeptical about the applicant's character or personality. If, on the other hand, the applicant wrote something like "unlike most of the other applicants whose files you will review, mommy and daddy didn't pay for my education," that would obviously raise red flags.

Explained briefly (i.e., in a subordinate clause of a sentence that makes a bigger point about one's background or education) and properly, I still see no reason whatsoever not to mention it. Indeed, depending on the field--say, labor history--it could be beneficial. Of course, if that was the case, you would obviously want to weave it into a broader narrative about why you want to study labor history!

My feeling is, it's not going to make your SOP, but it's not going to break it either.

I--

I'm tracking what you're saying. But please do consider the following. If the statement "I have a commitment to learning and scholarship at the highest levels: while working full time, I completed a prize-winning master's thesis and graduated at the top of my class" is accurate, and the applicant writing that statement had to do even more work towards the end, there would be the potential for the most devastating question of all: If a student is this accomplished, then why did his/her department decide not to provide meaningful financial support?

This question points directly to the personality of the applicant. That is, an applicant, although brilliant, motivated, and committed, may not "play well with others" and may have managed to alienate too many people in a very short period of time. Is it reasonable to conclude that, given such a possibility, an admissions committee might decide to bypass a risky candidate in favor of a clear "true believer"?

[cooperstreet]

>That is, an applicant, although brilliant, motivated, and committed, may not "play well with others" and may have managed to alienate too many people in a very short period of time.

This seems to be an odd assumption given that funding is distributed based on merit as it appears on transcripts and GRE scores, and not any personal interaction with the prospective student.

[ktel]

^ Funding can also be gained through the course of a program by approaching professors for RA or TA positions.

[Eigen]

This seems to be an odd assumption given that funding is distributed based on merit as it appears on transcripts and GRE scores, and not any personal interaction with the prospective student.

That's only really for the first semester. Past that, you can get funding based on your faculty members personal responses to you. It's not uncommon for program to take in borderline applicants with no initial funding and then decide to fund them (or not) based on their first semester interactions and progress.

[runonsentence]

This seems to be an odd assumption given that funding is distributed based on merit as it appears on transcripts and GRE scores, and not any personal interaction with the prospective student.

I'd be very surprised if funding (especially in my field, at least) ever rested on transcripts or GRE scores. The SoP would be the most important component for funding, as this is where the adcom can learn about the applicant's philosophy of teaching, knowledge of the field and related experience (so all the more reason to leave more room to talk about those things, right?).

[iamincontrolhere-haig]

I'd be very surprised if funding (especially in my field, at least) ever rested on transcripts or GRE scores. The SoP would be the most important component for funding, as this is where the adcom can learn about the applicant's philosophy of teaching, knowledge of the field and related experience (so all the more reason to leave more room to talk about those things, right?).

Depends on the school. Funding doesn't only come from departments. While departments probably do give a great deal of weight to the SOP, GRE scores and transcripts are often the only metrics by which one can compare applicants from different departments for university-wide fellowships. At my undergraduate institution, for instance, two of your GRE score percentiles have to combine to equal more than 180 to qualify for funding.

"While working full time" is four words. Even if those four words put you four words over the word limit, so what? Furthermore, to Sigaba's point, if you were to excise everything that could somehow be extrapolated to suggest something negative about you, you would either be painting a grossly distorted picture of yourself or saying nothing at all. To continue with the example I gave above, if an applicant were to write that he or she "completed a prize-winning master's thesis and graduated at the top of my class," the admissions committee could surmise that "this person is an arrogant prick and I don't want to work with them."

[Sigaba]

"While working full time" is four words. Even if those four words put you four words over the word limit, so what? Furthermore, to Sigaba's point, if you were to excise everything that could somehow be extrapolated to suggest something negative about you, you would either be painting a grossly distorted picture of yourself or saying nothing at all.

With respect, I believe you are missing the point.

The central question of this thread is what are the best way for an applicant to include tactfully a fact of debatable relevance in a SOP. Those of us who believe that the fact is not relevant are saying that there is no tactful way to accomplish the task and that the risks outweigh the rewards.

In regards to a comment on a SoP pointing out that an applicant "completed a prize-winning master's thesis and graduated at the top of my class," in my opinion, such a comment is a misuse of space for a historian's SoP. In my view, the SoP is less about what you've accomplished--a topic that should be covered by one's transcript and LoRs--and more about what you've learned, how well you can think, how well you can write, and how one's expertise puts one a step or two ahead of other applicants.

In so far as a "so what" attitude towards going over a word limit, each applicant must decide if playing outside the lines are worth the risk. In my experience, there are professors who will cut students slack on a case by case basis, those who will hold the line on standards, and those who will use any excuse to cut down their work load.

[Eigen]

I find it interesting to note that, predominately, those that are saying "don't do it" are all well into our graduate degrees, while those that are saying "do it" are currently applying. Something that might be worth considering.

[iamincontrolhere-haig]

I find it interesting to note that, predominately, those that are saying "don't do it" are all well into our graduate degrees, while those that are saying "do it" are currently applying. Something that might be worth considering.

Unless you have experience on admissions committees, I fail to see the significance. I've seen statements of purpose from successful applicants who mentioned their relatively unrelated work experiences and are now attending top programs. Your path to matriculation isn't the only one.

With respect, I believe you are missing the point.

The central question of this thread is what are the best way for an applicant to include tactfully a fact of debatable relevance in a SOP. Those of us who believe that the fact is not relevant are saying that there is no tactful way to accomplish the task and that the risks outweigh the rewards.

I certainly see the overall point, but I think some of the arguments being deployed in its favor are a bit far-fetched--the risk, for instance, being that readers will assume the applicant will want to continue working as he or she pursues a PhD or has a chip on his or her shoulder and is difficult to get along with. Divorced from the context (and depending on the mindset of the reader), almost anything one writes in a SOP could be construed negatively. And slightly contradictorily, I think just about anything can be said tactfully.

After a great deal of generalizing, I'll withhold judgment on the wisdom of mentioning it until if and when I see the entire statement.