SOP critique?

[BirdsofFire]

Hello,

I'm currently applying to Political Science PhD programs and I have been working on my statement for a couple of months now. I have received feedback from one professor and it was said that I should talk about myself some more; I could do that, but I was under the impression that the SOP should be about your future research. I was wondering if anyone could offer advice about what to fix in the statement itself or if I should be adding things that are currently missing. My grammar is a bit off in places, but I will work that out as I continue editing.

Here is what I have written thus far, I left the potential last paragraph blank because I intend to write each final paragraph tailored to the schools I am applying to.

Any criticism is appreciated, PMs would be appreciated.

Statement of Purpose for Taking Graduate Work: I wish to study Political Science, particularly Public Law and Political Theory, focusing on American conservative politics of the late twentieth century and the use of legal language, and symbolism and rights talk in regards to the discourse of conservative public officials in the American political sphere and the effect of such discourse on rights in a liberal state. My career goal is to teach at the University level and research the relationships between the importance of legal language and consciousness (both past and present) to conservative public officials and how conservatives use these methods to not only shape their political goals, but also form their conception of America in a broad sense.

Personal Statement: My interest in political rhetoric began in my sophomore year at the University of Connecticut. I had taken an American Political Parties class and many of our assignments included reading and analyzing speeches by prominent political figures throughout American history. One particular speech that caught my attention was Reagan’s A Time for Choosing speech for Barry Goldwater’s Presidential nomination in 1964. Ripe with rhetoric referring to “rights”, freedoms, and policy, Reagan’s words are a perfect example of language that not only combines a legal framework, but also an ideological one as well. Continuing through my junior and senior years at the University of Connecticut, several classes further influenced my research interest: Law & Society and American Political Thought. Both classes seamlessly brought together how American citizens conceptualize how legal language affects their everyday life as well as the policies influenced by such language. Another class, Gender and Global Politics helped form my conception of the roles of people within legal frameworks. With theories of security, what constitutes as a body, as well as how citizens are (un) able to maneuver through certain “spaces” (such as legal spaces) I was able to understand more clearly how political rhetoric from those in power is a clear influence on myriad sociopolitical factors within the United States.

However, I feel that while much of Law and Society literature I’ve read for my undergraduate studies focuses on how laws influence citizen’s relationship with government. Instead, I feel by focusing on public officials influence on law, policy, and how their rhetoric contributes to how citizens conceptualize America provides valuable research potential. Specifically, I feel that in the advent of 1964, despite Barry Goldwater’s historic defeat the ascension of conservative politics in the United States has been quite evident. Perhaps no other politician has been more influential to the modern conservative movement then the very man who gave Goldwater’s speech forty-seven years ago, Ronald Reagan.

Ronald Reagan’s influence on America’s conservative movement is manifold; from Supreme Court nominations which altered the balance of the court, to more policy-oriented issues such as economics, welfare, drugs, and crime. My future research will focus on the other side of Law and Society: on those who help to shape the laws, and how influential public officials such as Reagan, among others, use legal language (“the Constitution”, “three strike laws”, “activist courts” et al) in order to shape political agendas, and form the public’s idea of what rights ought to be. Beyond simply language and symbolism, perhaps the most important topic I’d research is rights talk. Mary Ann Glendon defines rights talk as “legalistic character, exaggerated absoluteness, hyper-individualism, and its’ silence with respect to personal, civic, and collective responsibilities”.

Using the history of late 20^th century American conservatism, I would ultimately like to answer multiple questions that emphasize how legal language has not only formed an identity for many citizens, but also how such language has fundamentally changed the way in which the framework of political discourse is approached. I would answer through my future research regarding how: conservative public officials both use legal language to push forward policy, and use such language and policy implementation to form their conception of the individual or the collective. By putting great emphasis on abstract concepts such as “freedom”, “liberty”, and “justice” conservative politics have used law and language to frame a nation seeped in dichotomies of good and evil, right and wrong, as well as eschewing relativism of any sort. The reason rights talk is important is not only regarding these questions of conception of a nation but also in answering my other questions relating back to Glendon’s observations of the individuals place in political discourse.

If rights talk is based on exaggerated absolutism, and hyper individualistic behaviors, then I feel that it is also necessary to observe how conservative legal rhetoric has not only affected citizenry with regards to the rampant call for individual rights and personal responsibility (which we have seen through attacks on welfare, calls for “free markets”, the lacking of good-Samaritan laws, and perhaps best through the recent Tea-Party explosion in the political arena) but also how officials use language, and symbolism to allow for political discourse to focus on attacking rights rather than fortifying them. While it is important to view how citizens (and non-citizens) mobilize legally, it is of equal importance to observe why such mobilization comes to fruition in the first place; and by focusing on how public officials both influence and enforce the laws being mobilized either for or against. The last issue I would like to research tying into the legal discourse and language of conservative public officials is how the issues of security through law and order creates a paradox within the framework of legal rights in a liberal state. In the advent of the conservative ascendency, policy issues focusing on issues of legal security are abound. From more explicit forms of security such as prisons or the PATRIOT ACT to subtler measures of security such as the evolution of school layouts or advancements in technology, research regarding conservative policy agendas, security and the law are paramount to understanding not only how citizens are affected both legally and socially; but to understanding the way in which public officials use law in order to shape the political landscape in a literal sense, and also the framework in which discourse is understood and approached.

Edited November 16, 2011 by SteveD1203

[rio-ne-ru]

Your professor is right.

It is good to describe what you have learned, your research interest, etc. But, you should add several personal opinions, such as why you want to go for a PhD, what you want to do after it, and why you choose that school?

Edited November 16, 2011 by rio-ne-ru

[Sigaba]

I have received feedback from one professor and it was said that I should talk about myself some more; I could do that, but

Steve--

But what?

You've gotten guidance from an established academic professional in your field of study. Why aren't you figuring out ways to follow that guidance?

[Sigaba]

I understand. I plan on following her advice, I guess my question should have been more along the lines of if there is some sort of preference (personal vs research oriented) regarding the statement itself and how much of a balance between the two is needed since it is quite clear that my statement lacks the "personal" aspect.

Thanks

-Steve

Steve--

I think that if you follow her advice by writing more about yourself, you will be able to figure out how to balance things out. (The pounding of the head against the wall is a part of this process.)

Maybe a way for you to go is to ask yourself some personal questions. Examples include: What happened during your sophomore year that made you decide "Hey, this is for me"? Why do you find the notion of teaching more interesting than researching? (Are you sure you want to draw this line in your SoP?) Why are you interested in what you call American conservative ideology as opposed to, say, German socialist thought and practice? Why do you think your area of interest is important? And so forth.