SoPs - aren't they giving you guys any direction?

[margarets]

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?

[PsychGirl1]

Yes, it varies from "submit a personal statement" to directions as explicit as yours.

[TakeruK]

Some schools were very vague. One prompt was simply "Please attach a PDF of your personal statement here." There was no word limit / page limit, or any other direction! Other schools were like the prompt you showed, and there were also some schools that wanted me to answer a specific question within the SOP. One school even reminded me to make sure I had the right school name l in my SOP before submission!

[ohgoodness]

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?

Honestly this does not reflect an explicit statement of what a school wants in the letter. It is vague, non-descript and leaves anyone pondering the actual qualities of ones background, future, research and how those fit to where you are applying. Many of the programs that I am applying to have that sort of description for the SOP and it really is a great challenge. Not only do I need to boil down my entire background into a 5 line paragraph, "selling myself" whilst being focused on the future, but I also need to write a statement that is interesting, relaxed and easy to follow. And obviously in your quote - there is plenty of room for mixing in personal history - you just gotta do the right way and make it relevant in your purpose. In my case - personal history is the glue that holds all the parts together.

You write a draft, look it over and wonder "is this it?" and then start over again. And then you start asking questions to anyone who went through the same process. It sure never gets easy.

(and some of us do second-guess ourselves constantly..)

Edited November 16, 2012 by cherub

[margarets]

Honestly this does not reflect an explicit statement of what a school wants in the letter. It is vague, non-descript and leaves anyone pondering the actual qualities of ones background, future, research and how those fit to where you are applying. Many of the programs that I am applying to have that sort of description for the SOP and it really is a great challenge. Not only do I need to boil down my entire background into a 5 line paragraph, "selling myself" whilst being focused on the future, but I also need to write a statement that is interesting, relaxed and easy to follow. And obviously in your quote - there is plenty of room for mixing in personal history - you just gotta do the right way and make it relevant in your purpose. In my case - personal history is the glue that holds all the parts together.

You write a draft, look it over and wonder "is this it?" and then start over again. And then you start asking questions to anyone who went through the same process. It sure never gets easy.

(and some of us do second-guess ourselves constantly..)

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.

[fuzzylogician]

"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.

Two things. One - you have more life experience; that means you have more to report, but you also have a much better perspective on what's important and what's not. Two - even if you know exactly what you want to say, writing a research statement is still very difficult. The thought that it should somehow be straightforward for someone with less background is puzzling to me. That is precisely when writing such a statement means stopping to consider some very basic questions about one's future, perhaps for the first time. Moreover, writing this kind of statement - the kind that is the meat and bones of any grant, job and even conference application - is a skill that takes researchers years to develop.

[ohgoodness]

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?

It surely is as explicit as can be but that does not mean it's very explicit. The point remain that it takes alot more than just sitting down and writing your SOP. I'm applying from a MA, very strongly focused on research, and I remain rather uncertain about the things that I point out and the things that I leave out.

[margarets]

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.

[Faraday]

I think the important thing to do is just get something down on paper. I had a hard time writing my first draft because I really didn't know what to address although a friend who graduated two years earlier was king enough to send me hers SOP a model for the main talking points. I took this very rough draft to my advisor and she politely told me it was horrible (this is what I wanted). She pointed out the areas where I didn't sound like a scientist and showed areas where I needed to think more deeply on the subject and asked me the right questions to stimulate my brain into thinking more deeply about why I want to go to grad school. Seven drafts later and I more or less had a final copy.

As was already said talk with your advisor or someone who has done this before. If you give them something to start with I am sure they will be more than happy to ask you those questions that get you moving in the right direction as any good mentor would.

Edited November 18, 2012 by Faraday

[fuzzylogician]

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 agree that if the thinking hasn't happened then the writing will be close to impossible. But even when the thinking has been done, writing is still not an easy task. In fact, it's one of the most difficult tasks graduate students face. Being able to clearly and succinctly communicate your ideas is anything but straightforward. It's a skill few have coming into grad school and many struggle with during school and beyond. You can be a brilliant scientist who has made amazing discoveries, and you may even be a wonderful presenter - but that absolutely doesn't mean that writing should be easy for you. Some very good scientists in my field appear not to have mastered writing at all. I find that incredibly frustrating, but still I would not dare dismiss their scholarship or intellect.

[margarets]

Some very good scientists in my field appear not to have mastered writing at all. I find that incredibly frustrating, but still I would not dare dismiss their scholarship or intellect.

I agree that if the thinking hasn't happened then the writing will be close to impossible. But even when the thinking has been done, writing is still not an easy task. In fact, it's one of the most difficult tasks graduate students face. Being able to clearly and succinctly communicate your ideas is anything but straightforward. It's a skill few have coming into grad school and many struggle with during school and beyond. You can be a brilliant scientist who has made amazing discoveries, and you may even be a wonderful presenter - but that absolutely doesn't mean that writing should be easy for you. Some very good scientists in my field appear not to have mastered writing at all. I find that incredibly frustrating, but still I would not dare dismiss their scholarship or intellect.

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.)

[margarets]

"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.

[fuzzylogician]

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.)

Well, you look at the data set that the scientist in question collected. You look at their calculations and you struggle through the convoluted wording to figure out what the conclusions are. Sometimes brilliant observations and novel claims can be "shaken loose" out of the text. (And yes, sometimes you learn that the convoluted words represent convoluted reasoning and unjustified conclusions.)

I'm certainly not advocating for anyone to use unclear writing, but part of our job as scholars is to learn to see beyond the writing and understand the ideas. I find your attitude towards this problem more idealistic than realistic - certainly there must be people in your field whose writing is less than clear, but you can't just choose to dismiss them. When you research a problem you need to be familiar with everything that has been written about it, whether or not it's written clearly. Choose to ignore writings that don't satisfy your aesthetics and you'll end up working on problems that have already been solved, or missing crucial data and/or techniques to solve your problem.

[margarets]

Well, you look at the data set that the scientist in question collected. You look at their calculations and you struggle through the convoluted wording to figure out what the conclusions are. Sometimes brilliant observations and novel claims can be "shaken loose" out of the text. (And yes, sometimes you learn that the convoluted words represent convoluted reasoning and unjustified conclusions.)

I'm certainly not advocating for anyone to use unclear writing, but part of our job as scholars is to learn to see beyond the writing and understand the ideas. I find your attitude towards this problem more idealistic than realistic - certainly there must be people in your field whose writing is less than clear, but you can't just choose to dismiss them. When you research a problem you need to be familiar with everything that has been written about it, whether or not it's written clearly. Choose to ignore writings that don't satisfy your aesthetics and you'll end up working on problems that have already been solved, or missing crucial data and/or techniques to solve your problem.

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?

[fuzzylogician]

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.

Listen, I'm not going to have a "I read more than you do" match. Maybe in your field you can choose to ignore works that don't suit your literary aesthetics or trust that others will summarize them for you. Maybe you work on very mainstream issues where you can truly rely on that. Where I am coming from, you can't make that assumption and you also can't draw any link between writing and content. You can find mediocre results packaged in well-written papers but on the other end of that there are also important results in not-as-well-written papers. When you write a dissertation you hope to become the number 1 expert in your field on your topic. For me that means being familiar with everything and not trusting others to do the work for me. I also don't work on problems where I can expect everything to be summarized in the first place. The field moves fast and I need to keep up with current publications, not wait for others to read them for me. But if it works for you, I guess your field must be very different.

[margarets]

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?

[ohgoodness]

Are there many cases of important research being done only by bad writers?

http://www.demographic-research.org/ roughly 1/3 would qualify as poor writing in sociological demographic yet pass for excellent in mathematical demography. Where do we draw the line?