trying to decide between two potential writing samples

[Guest Gnome Chomsky]

Don't worry. I'm not asking anyone to read my two writing samples and tell me which one is better. I'm simply going to describe each paper, the papers' pros and cons, and my background/objectives. Let's just assume both papers are well written, yet differ fundamentally. 

 

Background on me: I'm finishing up my undergrad in linguistics with a minor in computer science, and I'll be applying to master's programs in computational linguistics for Fall 2014. Obviously, my primary background is linguistics, so I want to submit a linguistics paper. I also haven't written any research papers in computer science. 

 

I have two papers I'm trying to decide between. I wrote one last summer (we'll call that Paper A) in an undergrad called Research Writing and Bibliographic something. The class, which is required for various social science majors, is predicated on teaching undergrads (preferably beginning, but I was in my 4th year) how to write proper research papers; i.e. MLA, in-text citations, research, scholarly sources, works cited, etc. I wrote the other paper (Paper B in a graduate class (I was the only undergrad) called Second Language Acquisition. I took that class this past Spring semester, so I wrote it about 2 and a half months ago. 

 

Paper A (13 pages in length) was on Chomskyan Nativism and how it applied to semantic change. We weren't taught anything about a particular subject in this class, so we had to teach ourselves (or write what we already knew) and write about something related to our major. Since I was also a philosophy major, I decided to write more of a philosophical paper on a subject I hadn't yet been formally taught. The concept was definitely original and the arguments I used were fairly creative. The professor really enjoyed it, but she also wasn't a linguistics professor so she didn't really know how accurate the content was. Overall, it was a fun paper to write, and I feel it is at least entertaining and won't put you to sleep, but I'm not really sure if it's as well-researched or content heavy as Paper B. 

 

Paper B (17 pages in length), on the other hand, was on CALL (computer assisted language learning) in Second Language Acquisition. I was much more comfortable and familiar with this material since it was for a grad class and I'd never done so much reading in a single semester. I also tried to pick a topic (CALL) that was somewhat related to computational linguistics, since I took the class with grad school in mind. Specifically I wrote about synchronous CMC (computer mediated communication), namely Internet Chat rooms, the features of Chat, and its impact on SLA compared to face to face and other forms of CMC. The ONLY reason I'm even considering Paper A as a writing sample is because the professor made us write Paper B as a Literature Review. Essentially, (it's in APA) the paper is a brief abstract, a page or so introducing the layout of the paper and my goals, then almost 3 pages each on 5 separate studies in the field of SLA related to Chat rooms. The paper is really formulaic. Each study is broken down by: 1) motivation for the study and brief background, 2) participants, length, procedure, data measurements, etc, 3) results in the form of quantitative or qualitative data, and finally 4) findings, overall conclusions, and if the results support or reject the hypothesis. Then, after summarizing the 5 studies, I spend a few pages re-summarizing the studies and overall paper, and then I come to a few of my own conclusions and state that further research needs to be done in X, Y, Z. 

 

All in all, it's apparent that I have a grasp of the material in Paper B and it's obvious that it's well-researched. I think it would be hard for a linguist to not take it seriously since I'm basically just summarizing studies and supporting conclusions made by previous linguists. I'm not making bold statements and conclusions like I am in Paper A. However, I don't know if this is necessarily a good thing. I definitely think Paper B is the safe option. My main concern is with the fact that Paper B is a literature review. I don't know if schools want to read a lit review or if they want to see my argumentative skills and original ideas (no matter how bold they may or may not be). Don't get me wrong, it's not that Paper A is totally ridiculous. I just feel that my knowledge and grasp of the material is much more apparent in Paper B, despite not having necessarily wrote an original argument. 

Edited July 2, 2013 by JoeyBoy718

[funchaku]

This is still very early in the application season, and I would recommend that whichever paper you choose, you take the time to edit/expand on it. In fact, you have time to write a whole new one if you don't think either option is sufficient (this is what I ended up doing). My inclination is towards paper B, though I would certainly recommend you add to it. Of course you want to be able to demonstrate your ability to plow through and succinctly summarize relevant literature, but you also want to show that you can offer some of your own solutions to problems you outline.

[Snuffleupagus]

Hi, I would go for paper B, but I would also take it to your adviser and have them read through it and edit it.  Be sure that the paper can be edited and include more nods to topics you may be interested in.  For comparison, my writing sample was about 30 pages. Good Luck