How to add justification for courses and prior research

[mrmalawi]

I applied as an at-large applicant last year as I was applying to various masters programs and the reviews I got back mainly criticized my lack of rigorous and relevant coursework during my undergraduate studies as well as a lack of prior research experience.  I was a social science major and am now shifting to an ecology/agricultural science focus.  These are the two areas that I knew I didn't really have anyway of changing while I was living overseas last year so I took that as a good thing that the rest of my application was competitive aside from those two BIG areas.

 

My question revolves around how to go about justifying and explaining these discrepancies this year.  I am now in an MS program and my intention over the next year is to 1) take the courses that appear to be needed to the research I am proposing 2) join a lab focusing on soils/cropping systems which is relevant to my proposed research. 

 

I am mainly wondering where to bring up these issues in my essays.  Should they appear in one essay, if so which one? Or should they come in both?  It seems like the classes/grades could go in both as they would help show how I will be prepared to conduct my proposed research but so could my experience in a lab this fall. 

[Loric]

Don't attempt to explain away problems that might not be problems. You're just drawing attention to them. Let them find it on their own - if they do. NEVER guide them to potential reasons to not admit you. The thought may have never crossed their minds.

 

Do, however, focus on why that different background makes you a unique candidate who can transition what you've studied/learned into the field and how you are dedicated to this new field of research/work. There's gotta be some way it's helpful. Hell, go for "work ethic" and "ability to handle stressful situation and high work loads" if all else fails. You learned something that made you who you are today, it wasn't for nothing. Explain how that's good for them and your future.

 

Avoid anything that implies your decision was a mistake or to correct a mistake.

[Sigaba]

Don't attempt to explain away problems that might not be problems. You're just drawing attention to them. Let them find it on their own - if they do. NEVER guide them to potential reasons to not admit you. The thought may have never crossed their minds.

Do, however, focus on why that different background makes you a unique candidate who can transition what you've studied/learned into the field and how you are dedicated to this new field of research/work. There's gotta be some way it's helpful. Hell, go for "work ethic" and "ability to handle stressful situation and high work loads" if all else fails. You learned something that made you who you are today, it wasn't for nothing. Explain how that's good for them and your future.

Avoid anything that implies your decision was a mistake or to correct a mistake.

Two questions. First, did you read the OP carefully? The post points out that an issue has already been identified. Is stonewalling the best way to go given the possibility that the same issue will remain evident to any one who looks at the applicant's transcript?

Second, based upon what experiences is your guidance based?

Edited September 8, 2013 by Sigaba

[Loric]

Admission to multiple graduate programs...? A career as a writer..?

[Loric]

The point I may not have clearly expressed..

 

You shouldn't point out missteps as negatives. Negatives are things for the admissions group to find on their own and decide on their own. You job as an applicant is to give them all the reasons to accept you. You can "explain" by pointing out how it makes you who you are, what you learned, and how there are positives you gleamed. But you don't state it as a negative.

 

Being negative is their job. They are looking for reasons to reject people to make their lives easier. Don't give them the reasons.

[Sigaba]

@Loric

The fact that you've been admitted to programs and made a living as a writer does not make you an authority on the admissions process. In the event you earn the trust of professors, you may find that their motivation is dynamic. Many don't approach their responsibilities from a negative perspective, especially when it comes to deciding who might be their peers down the line.

Your POV that admissions committees approach applications from a "negative" perspective stands in stark contrast to the experiences of many graduate students on this BB who were admitted despite not being ideal candidates on paper or having classmates on whom departments took a chance.

Also, it is bad form to offer broad generalizations about what an application should never or always do. For example, if the OP were to apply to a program where the professors are focused upon teaching and mentoring, it may well be a huge plus for an applicant to point out that she or he received criticism and then took corrective steps to address the issue.

As you are a new member who wants to enrich this BB, I respectfully suggest that you spend time reading posts by Fuzzy Logician and Eigen. You will see that they are highly respected because they give good guidance. You will also see that their guidance is good because it is based upon their experiences in their respective programs.

[Loric]

The advice in the sticky at the top of the forum says not to list negatives.. just sayin.