humor and how much is too much?

[Guest Gnome Chomsky]

I've read through a number of SOPs and many of them are very conventional, predictable, and, frankly, boring. I wonder if people have personally spiced theirs up a bit, possibly with humor, or know anyone who has. Also, I was wondering how much character is too much character. And if you have personal examples, that would be good... and entertaining.

Edited June 9, 2012 by JoeyBoy718

[surefire]

I think that a number of SOPs are formulaic in the sense that, they are trying to accomplish a set amount of tasks under stringent formatting guidelines and limited space, which may give them a "stilted" look... it certainly doesn't seem to lend itself to creativity!

I think that you're right to infer that "boring" SOPs are kind of a liability. As someone that's been on an admission committee, I definitely appreciated the ones that were a treat, rather than a chore, to read.

However, it was more CLARITY that I prized, over humour. That is, SOPs where I don't have to "hunt" for the author's points (it should be clear, for example, why it makes sense for the applicant to continue her studies at THIS institution, rather than elsewhere, I shouldn't have to read the SOP more than once and then infer this info) I was certainly amicable to "funny", but here's the thing: not a lot of people are funny, and in tiny spaces, poorly executed attempts at humour are irritating, not endearing. I would caution against anything that may come across as an attempt to be "cute", "snarky", or too smart for your own good. I remember one applicant cited "liberal legal scholarship" and was punning on the "liberal" to mean both left-leaning and abundant/lavish and I was like "OMIGAWD SHUT UP!" When you read literally hundreds of these, anything that is inserted with the specific goal of "winning over" the readers reeks of disingenuousness and disrupts your narrative.

The general rule, I think, is this: if the humour lends insight to the research(er), then it is likely to be well-received. If the goal of the humour is to try and show that you are clever, then it's more likely to result in rolled eyes.

Edited June 9, 2012 by surefire

[TheFez]

Well said Surefire.

Most people are not skilful enough to pull off humor. And attempts to be "cute" and "clever" more often fall short. Personal history is more likely to come off as fluff than substance.

Write - edit - reread - edit.

I agree that Clarity is key. The short (2 pages or so) should tell a convincing story with a smooth flow that leaves the reader feeling as if they know more about you as a researcher, and why you want to be in their program.

In my SOP I worked hard to create the impression that "this student has done their homework on what they want to do - and what we are all about. They make a logical, and convincing case for working here."

[TakeruK]

I approached my SOP the way I would write a cover letter for a job -- it's professional writing where you try to make a point/argument based on your personal experiences. I didn't try to use humour at all, but the personal nature of the experiences I was sharing helped make the SOP not so formal/bland.

I prioritized being clear over interesting/creative sentence structures every time though. I think it's more important to say what you want clearly and concisely rather than provide an enjoyable experience for the reader. But this could just be the nature of my field (or maybe I completely misjudge the SOP and I was lucky I even got in, lol). Good writing is definitely one of the fundamental skills a scientist should have, but the SOP is not meant to demonstrate these skills -- it is for arguing for your fit in their program. I think programs usually ask for a writing sample when they want to evaluate your writing ability.

I say this because I don't think that a candidate would be rejected based on how interesting-to-read their SOP was. I think SOPs are evaluated for content, not style. Of course, in the subjective world of admissions, an offensive-to-read SOP would be detrimental, but I don't think a cleverly written SOP will have enough advantage over a "bland" but gets-the-job-done SOP to justify the amount of writing and rewriting necessary. I found it very useful to have people who weren't graduate students read the SOP as well (even though the adcomms would be in your field) to make sure the narrative flows and is logical.

[Sigaba]

I say this because I don't think that a candidate would be rejected based on how interesting-to-read their SOP was. I think SOPs are evaluated for content, not style. Of course, in the subjective world of admissions, an offensive-to-read SOP would be detrimental, but I don't think a cleverly written SOP will have enough advantage over a "bland" but gets-the-job-done SOP to justify the amount of writing and rewriting necessary. I found it very useful to have people who weren't graduate students read the SOP as well (even though the adcomms would be in your field) to make sure the narrative flows and is logical.

I wonder if this is a STEM vs. social sciences/humanities issue. I've worked with engineers in two different industries and there was much more of a "get to the point" sensibility when it came to communication. Conversely, IME, historians are prone to appreciate good writing and that appreciation often works to a writer's benefit.

As for humor in a SoP, I would tread lightly. You're writing for an audience that you do not know. What may make some laugh coffee through their noses may leave others unimpressed (or even bored) or turn others against you.

My $0.02.

[TheFez]

It seems a little pompous to assume that historians appreciate good writing and STEM folks don't. I appreciate good writing as much as the next historian - but the problem is that most SOP authors are not good writers and so the SOP fails in both form and substance.

[Sigaba]

It seems a little pompous to assume that historians appreciate good writing and STEM folks don't. I appreciate good writing as much as the next historian - but the problem is that most SOP authors are not good writers and so the SOP fails in both form and substance.

@theFez--

Reread my post. I posed a question, not an assumption, based upon my experiences with engineers and with historians.

[TheFez]

Sorry. I assumed a question mark (e.g. "?") would signal a question. But I am just one of those STEM guys.

That's why it's safer to just "get to the point" when you write to an academic audience. QED.

Edited June 30, 2012 by TheFez

[TakeruK]

It might be a STEM thing since graduate students are not expected to possess scientific writing skills before starting -- it's something we learn as we write papers during our PhD. Although if you do have the skills, it would make you all the more desirable!

I wasn't trying to say whether or not the adcomm would "appreciate" good writing, but whether or not they would judge you on it. For example, when I grade my students' homework, I appreciate neat writing, or typed reports, but I don't actually grade them on how nice they format things (unless it's illegible). It's my understanding that many social sciences/humanities applications involve a writing sample, which is much longer, and I would think that would be the place where writing style/ability is judged. Sure, having a well written SOP is never a bad thing, as it might be read before the writing sample and thus give a good first impression, but it is my opinion that you should spend enough time on it to make sure it says what you want to say, and then move on. My SOPs went through 2 drafts and then 1-2 more drafts for each school as I personalized the SOPs to fit the program. In total, I probably spent about 6 hours writing the master version, plus 1 hour per school to personalize it -- not counting the time it took to research each program to learn how to personalize each SOP. Sure, if I spent more time, it would make it better, but I think it would be diminishing returns at this point!

[emmm]

I have no idea how my SOP was received. It took mutiple drafts to complete, and was read by two professors whose opinions I value highly before I submitted it. It was honest and it was reflective of who I am and the experiences that led me to applying. It wasn't funny, but it wasn't just focused on research interests, either. It might have been too personal, but there were aspects of my background that needed explanation. I did get multiple interviews, and I am a grad student now, however, so I guess it served its purpose.

[Sigaba]

Sorry. I assumed a question mark (e.g. "?") would signal a question. But I am just one of those STEM guys.

That's why it's safer to just "get to the point" when you write to an academic audience. QED.

You are bringing an unnecessarily confrontational tone to this thread.

[fuzzylogician]

Are you sure you can pull it off? Are you sure *all* your readers will get your joke? There's a danger in writing something that could be misunderstood and label you something you don't want - be it naive, bigoted, awkward, clown, not serious, etc.

I understand your desire to distinguish yourself, but the way to do that is through the serious part of the app, not through the fluff that surrounds it. If you're successful and stay in academia, you'll write plenty of formulaic essays that must adhere to all kinds of guidelines (length, content, formatting). The way you get your abstract, grant proposal or article positively reviewed is by making them stand out *professionally*. Your SOP should not be an exception. Its readers are used to judging work on content, not entertainment value. You will be chosen because adcoms consider you a strong candidate who will fit into the department and has good prospects of developing a successful career, not because of your jokes. You also want to be remembered because of your captivating SOP, not because it was funny. That's my $.02.

[bfat]

It may also be important to think about the distinction between "humor" and "levity." Trying to be funny is one thing (which, as many have pointed out, can be very difficult and may end up doing more harm than good), but I think that allowing a little lightness into the SOP here and there might make it more memorable or "less boring" if you are worried about an overly serious tone. Not that the whole statement should be light-hearted or whimsical, which would be contrary to the academic nature of the thing, but lightening the tone in a few places might give it a sense of complexity and make it more interesting to read.

Then again, I'm still working on my first draft and so can claim no success with this technique... so take my advice with a grain of salt.

[andruw000]

I have no idea how my SOP was received. It took mutiple drafts to complete, and was read by two professors whose opinions I value highly before I submitted it. It was honest and it was reflective of who I am and the experiences that led me to applying. It wasn't funny, but it wasn't just focused on research interests, either. It might have been too personal, but there were aspects of my background that needed explanation. I did get multiple interviews, and I am a grad student now, however, so I guess it served its purpose.

not suggesting your sop wasn't good, but you probably could have turned in a comic strip for your sop and still received interviews with test scores like those!

[fuzzylogician]

not suggesting your sop wasn't good, but you probably could have turned in a comic strip for your sop and still received interviews with test scores like those!

That's a very naive opinion. Of all the grad school application components, the GRE grades are one of the least important. The SOP, LORs and writing sample are much MUCH more indicative of an applicant's success. Low scores may keep you out of school but once you pass the cutoff threshholds (if they even exist), it's those other components that will get you in.

[andruw000]

That's a very naive opinion. Of all the grad school application components, the GRE grades are one of the least important. The SOP, LORs and writing sample are much MUCH more indicative of an applicant's success. Low scores may keep you out of school but once you pass the cutoff threshholds (if they even exist), it's those other components that will get you in.

i was being facetious. i understand the significance of all aspects of an application. it was simply meant as a compliment to the poster's strong test scores.

[morningdew]

This thread is very helpful as I'm in the beginning stage to write my SOP.

If humor is not recommended, what other ways can you distinguish yourself from other canididate in writing?

My area is new media/digial media and I highly value creativity so I want my SOP to be creative in format or style. However, after reading this thread, I think I should just follow the format and focus on being clear.

[SeriousSillyPutty]

I haven't talked to the profs to find out exactly what they did or didn't like in my SoP, but I did get in, so let's assume for now that the SoP wasn't a turn-off:

I didn't use humor, but I did provide a light visual. (This was easier because of the nature of my interests, but might apply to others.) This was in the first paragraph of my SoP:

"As an outreach educator, I wear a tie-dye lab coat and make a lot of silly putty. But silly putty is serious business: It can illustrate the power of polymers to middle-schoolers, or enable the scientific method for third-graders, or be the kindergarten culmination of primary color mixing."

Now, like I said, I don't know what their impression was, but my goal was to give a good mental image of who I was, so that, if they were talking about all the apps, they could say, "ya know, that one girl in the tie-dye lab coat."

So, I would say focus on something that makes you unique that will put a clear mental image in their head. Things are more memorably if they are more unusual. Maybe you're wearing a hockey jersey at a Read Wings game but thinking about physics. Maybe you were the exchange student who managed to interact with the locals in between extensive periods sunblock application. At the gym, I read "The Economist" on the stationary bike and jam out to NPR while jogging. This can be completely sincere (so no fear of a wise-crack going wrong) but show some you have some personality.

That, or maybe your entire SoP should be a series of Limericks?

[SeriousSillyPutty]

I inspired myself. If I had to re-write my SoP, it would be:

There once was a science gal who

Found her current job just wouldn't do

But her big concern:

Physics is hard to learn!

So a PhD she must pursue

[morningdew]

"As an outreach educator, I wear a tie-dye lab coat and make a lot of silly putty. But silly putty is serious business: It can illustrate the power of polymers to middle-schoolers, or enable the scientific method for third-graders, or be the kindergarten culmination of primary color mixing."

I thought your advice was really helpful and I really liked the first few sentences that you wrote. It's lightly humored and cute at the same time. I can really picture the image. I wish you your professors have told you about what they thought of your sop because even though I think it's good, who knows, I'm just a student and they are the admission committee...

Also, have you guys ever heard of people pulling a big risky move by not writing sop but doing a super creative sop, such as creating comics or a poster? I recently got a collection of good sop examples book from library (don't remember the name) and this person who applied to Harvard drew a cartoon (partly serious and partly humored) for his sop. So daring!

[SeriousSillyPutty]

Thanks!

Also, have you guys ever heard of people pulling a big risky move by not writing sop but doing a super creative sop, such as creating comics or a poster?

I haven't heard in person of that happening. FWIW, this is what the author of "Getting What You Came For" says about application essays:

"Avoid stylistic flourishes, slang, and the temptation to make yourself sound more sensitive than everyone else. Aviod references to childhood formative experiences.... Avoid attempts at the profound.... Avoid humor -- it is too easy to sound sophomoric....

"Your essay will be most readable if you answer essay questions truthfully and simply, without trying to impress the committee."

Now, granted, this book was written in 1992, and it's just written by one guy, so it's not the gospel, but probably generally good advice.

My concern about doing something really out there is that there's no way of knowing if something similar has been tried before -- if it will be looked at as a pleasant surprise, or a gimmick by someone who didn't want to write an essay. Maybe the compromise is an addendum? Write the whole SOP straight like you would if it was to stand alone, then do an alternative SOP that's more creative (commic, YouTube video, or what have you.) That way they can still compare you evenly with other candidates, but then you also have something more memorable.

... But again, what do I know? :-)

[morningdew]

Write the whole SOP straight like you would if it was to stand alone, then do an alternative SOP that's more creative (commic, YouTube video, or what have you.) That way they can still compare you evenly with other candidates, but then you also have something more memorable.

... But again, what do I know? :-)

Hey, you got into PhD program! So you definitely know more than me!

I think I might follow your advice and do two SOP (one writing, one creative) for one of my top choice schools.

*Sigh* this application process is always exhausting for sure. Thanks again!