Can admission committees tell when you feign mentioning professors???

[5224]

It is said that you should mention professor and programs particularities in your statement of purpose in order to increase your chances of being accepted. But, aren´t the admission committee members tired of reading it, once and once again? Can they tell that what you state is not genuine? Can a Statement of Purpose seems to be hollow and resonant because, although you did a great SOP, It looks like you just followed the "Formula"?

I am asking this because, maybe they are not interested in that kind of information since they know that students can simply make a vague research of the program and to mention some of their centers, professor, facilities, etc.

[Canis]

They'll know because they'll ask those professors if you've reached out to them, and they'll read your statement looking for a statement that was written for that specific school. So, the answer to your question (according to the Kiss of Death research below) is yes they are tired of reading essays like you describe:

 

"I’m very attentive to whether a student’s interest matches our training. I expect a statement of personal interest that displays a convincing, compelling desire for what we have to offer from its start to finish. It’s a kiss of death when I read a personal essay that describes an applicant’s life-long goal of serving humankind and has a paragraph tacked on to the end that “personalizes” the essay for the particular school to which it was sent."

 

from: http://psychology.unl.edu/psichi/Graduate_School_Application_Kisses_of_Death.pdf

[LittleDarlings]

I avoided putting a professor in my SOP for that reason. I went through and researched the staff and honestly none of their research pertained to what I wanted to do. I mentioned a lot of the certification programs that I was interested in but I didn't mention a specific professor. I think it's better to not mention one and not look like you just threw a name in there with basically no research, that's just my opinion though.

[surefire]

It is said that you should mention professor and programs particularities in your statement of purpose in order to increase your chances of being accepted. But, aren´t the admission committee members tired of reading it, once and once again? Can they tell that what you state is not genuine? Can a Statement of Purpose seems to be hollow and resonant because, although you did a great SOP, It looks like you just followed the "Formula"?

I am asking this because, maybe they are not interested in that kind of information since they know that students can simply make a vague research of the program and to mention some of their centers, professor, facilities, etc.

 

In my field it is absolutely expected that you would mention a prospective prof that could supervise you. I have mentioned before that I've been on an adcomm. While I appreciate that some applicants bristle at "the formula" and feel as though it makes their narrative appear "stilted", the point of the word limits and strict structure is that you have to convey a great deal in a tiny, equitable space. Adcomms need to read hundreds of these, and in my case anyway, I prized clarity over attempts to be funny or a unique snowflake or to "cleverly" try to circumvent the formula. If your potential "fit" with the program is apparent right away (and citing a legit prof bolsters that), then I'm hooked and will read the rest of your app with great interest.

 

It can be obvious when the applicant is not being genuine or has not done their homework (I had many applicants who said things like, "Prof. so-and-so is perfect, I shall work with them" and I knew that that prof was going on a lengthy sabbatical next year (which could be ascertained by looking at their faculty page) and would not be taking new students, for example). In these cases, a tiny bit of recon can help a great deal to legitiize your app. Why would you spend the time and application money on a place you weren't excited enough about to research aptly? Why would an adcomm be interested if your enthusiasm (conveyed via your research effort) is lackluster?

 

I avoided putting a professor in my SOP for that reason. I went through and researched the staff and honestly none of their research pertained to what I wanted to do. I mentioned a lot of the certification programs that I was interested in but I didn't mention a specific professor. I think it's better to not mention one and not look like you just threw a name in there with basically no research, that's just my opinion though.

 

I... why? Why would you apply to a place where no one is doing work that pertains to what you want to do? I suppose if you're just after the certification, and you can craft a compelling narrative about the certification as a means to an end, then THAT'S your story and it could be effective. You need to have something in an SOP regarding, not just why you want to study what you want to study, but why you want to do it at THAT particular institution. Often, that type of fit is established by identifying the area that you will contribute to and the resources you will draw upon (which lends itself to a discussion of research(ers) in the departement that is relevant to you). If you have a specific goal in mind via the certificate, then that works, but I wouldn't advise your strategy for everyone, because that leads to SOPs where people say vague things like they "want a PhD to help people", which doesn't say much (it gives the impression to the adcomm that the person lacks direction or, worse, is pursuing a PhD to bide their time, because they simply don't know what else to do with themselves).

[LittleDarlings]

Well since I am not pursing a PhD I don't think that is a problem... I am going for a MSW.  The schools I picked have great clinical social work programs and that was important, THAT is why I picked them.  I also wanted to gain certification in mental health and developmental disabilities, after researching none of the professors that I saw had certification in DD which was a major thing in my SOP.  I didn't say everyone should do what I did, I am saying I did it and I don't think it made a huge difference (I guess I will know in a few months). I made a post like this while I was applying and a few people said it is better to not mention a prof than to just throw some random name in there. In all honesty I don't even think you do a lot of research/lab studies in clinical social work...? I could be wrong.  

Edited December 18, 2013 by Pinkster12

[geographyrocks]

Like surefire, my field also requires you to identify possible advisors in the SOP/LOI.  This meant that I spent hours on end researching programs, research facilities, and professors to find ones that would fit.  It was required for both Masters and PhD programs. 

I'm sure that the committees get tired of reading about their own program, but wouldn't you want to know if a potential candidate even bothered to research the program they want to go in to?  That's the whole point of mentioning professor and program particularities, in my opinion.  The committee knows what they do, and they want to know that you know as well. 

[TexasGuy]

i guess im screwed. I used the "tell them your purpose in life in the first couple paragraphs and tag on a paragraph at the end about why you want to attend their school" approach..

[Loric]

I think the problem is in the "not being genuine" - not the formula for the rest of it.

[ereissoup]

I am still unsure what you mean by "feign," but as long as there are legitimate similarities and parallels between your research, methodologies, interests etc., and those of the professor, it should count in your favour, even if you only briefly discuss that professor's research. From what I've been told by all my professors, the people you mention in the SOP will read your statement and determine for themselves what sort of "fit" they think there is. You can go on about how amazing or unique you think your potential supervisor/advisor is, but at the end of the day they already know what sort of research they are doing, and are more interested in learning about what you want to do. Using a formulaic approach is fine, too. As other people have pointed out, what is "genuine" or not is the actual relation between your interests and those of the professor, not how eloquently or "earnestly" you've written your statement.

[comicline865]

i guess im screwed. I used the "tell them your purpose in life in the first couple paragraphs and tag on a paragraph at the end about why you want to attend their school" approach..

 

What you did is fine (provided the essay is well written). Rewriting your entire statement of purpose to tailor it for each school would really be the more disingenuous choice (unless you're applying to several radically different programs). Presumably, your qualifications and interests won't magically change for each school if you've stated them honestly; the graduate school just wants to see you know a bit about who's there who could work with you.

[danieleWrites]

Rewriting your entire statement of purpose to tailor it for each school would really be the more disingenuous choice (unless you're applying to several radically different programs). Presumably, your qualifications and interests won't magically change for each school if you've stated them honestly; the graduate school just wants to see you know a bit about who's there who could work with you.

This makes no sense to me. While the applicant's qualifications and interests won't change, what does change is how/why the program can work with those qualifications and interests. Every US university with a PhD in literature in the English department has an American Literature PhD. They'll have faculty that specialize in each period. But I wouldn't write the same SOP to separate programs. I would tell them the same thing about my interests, I wanna research American Lit stuff involving military actions to see what American Lit writers think of the use of submarines (or whatever). But I wouldn't completely ignore what the program has to offer. I'd mention specific faculty who I could work with and, more importantly why I think those particular faculty would be helpful. I'd mention a variety of things that are both completely true and specific to the particular program. Aside from two sets of sentences that explained why I wanted a PhD and what my research interests are, the rest of the SOP was different for each program. And each SOP was completely true.

How is that disingenuous?

Edited December 21, 2013 by danieleWrites

[VioletAyame]

This makes no sense to me. While the applicant's qualifications and interests won't change, what does change is how/why the program can work with those qualifications and interests. Every US university with a PhD in literature in the English department has an American Literature PhD. They'll have faculty that specialize in each period. But I wouldn't write the same SOP to separate programs. I would tell them the same thing about my interests, I wanna research American Lit stuff involving military actions to see what American Lit writers think of the use of submarines (or whatever). But I wouldn't completely ignore what the program has to offer. I'd mention specific faculty who I could work with and, more importantly why I think those particular faculty would be helpful. I'd mention a variety of things that are both completely true and specific to the particular program. Aside from two sets of sentences that explained why I wanted a PhD and what my research interests are, the rest of the SOP was different for each program. And each SOP was completely true.

How is that disingenuous?

 

As I understand, in most SOPs the "fit" part would be tailored to each program and the rest pretty much remains the same. The way you described it, you did the same thing, it's just that your "fit" part was substantially bigger than the rest of your statement. I find it definitely not disingenuous but a bit strange, since apart from my research interests, I also wanted to show my potentials, what I did and what I learned to make me a suitable candidate for the program, or as Starbuck put it, my qualifications, so that would take much more than just 2 sets of sentences. But again, I know nothing about the conventions for SOP in your field. I just think what he meant by "disingenuous" is you would be falsely presenting yourself if you changed your interests and qualifications part (a big part of the SOP in our cases) to fit each program. He was not referring to tailoring the "fit" part, which is what you did.

[Loric]

This whole thread seems to use various terms in ways that are.. varied.. to say the least. This is probably leading to the confusion. So.. time for dissection..

 

It is said that you should mention professor and programs particularities in your statement of purpose in order to increase your chances of being accepted.

 

True.

 

But, aren´t the admission committee members tired of reading it, once and once again?

 

The "it" implies the mention of a POI because of the previous statement, but I think the sentiment might be that they're just tired of "it" (everything) in general. Either way, the answer is "Yes" but with some important qualifiers. There both good and bad ways to hit the points you need to make in a SOP. How it's written is just as important as what is written.

 

Can they tell that what you state is not genuine? Can a Statement of Purpose seems to be hollow and resonant because, although you did a great SOP, It looks like you just followed the "Formula"?

 

I think most of us were thrown by the comparison of "hollow" and "resonant" because you strive to make a statement "resonate" with a reader (a postive) whereas the word "resonant" is being used to further the idea of being "hollow" (a negative) as resonant is the accoustic quality of a hollow body.. resonate being the filling of that hollow space with sound. This illustrates why word choice is important, not just in meaning but in the context of the reader's experience. Readers will assume resonaTE because it fits the expectation, but makes no sense.. whereas the writer meant resonaNT because it further reinforced his/her statement.

 

Answering the questions.. Yes, they can tell when something is not genuinely stated. A great SOP however is not "hollow" - there also seems to be some confusion there on the part of the author. Following the formular does not make a great SOP. There is more to it. It is not a simple mathematical equasion. For simplication purposes we can call it the art of writing, and that art is more than the formula we often see touted as the way to write an SOP. Consider a paint-by-numbers... it has the basics, but following it carefully you most certainly did not create another Starry Night. Why? Because there is more to painting than fields of color. Layering, adjacency, texture and stroke.. to name a few. Things the guideline wont tell you about, but without the guideline you're more off track than you'd ever be with it.

 

I am asking this because, maybe they are not interested in that kind of information since they know that students can simply make a vague research of the program and to mention some of their centers, professor, facilities, etc.

 

Indirect inference time.. you made a vague research attempt and feel a little guilty..? That's what the statement implies to me. You're worried about them knowing you did it half-heartedly and are including it because you're 'supposed to.' Well, yes, that will be a problem and they will be able to tell. Again, it's not a matter of just hitting the points you need to hit them well. They're interested in hearing why a POI is a good fit to further your studies, they're not interested in "I googled the school and his name is there and I need to include a name because everyone said so and there it is.. word vomit!"

 

No word vomit. Go back and research it properly so you can speak about it appropriately.

Edited December 21, 2013 by Loric

[comicline865]

As I understand, in most SOPs the "fit" part would be tailored to each program and the rest pretty much remains the same. The way you described it, you did the same thing, it's just that your "fit" part was substantially bigger than the rest of your statement. I find it definitely not disingenuous but a bit strange, since apart from my research interests, I also wanted to show my potentials, what I did and what I learned to make me a suitable candidate for the program, or as Starbuck put it, my qualifications, so that would take much more than just 2 sets of sentences. But again, I know nothing about the conventions for SOP in your field. I just think what he meant by "disingenuous" is you would be falsely presenting yourself if you changed your interests and qualifications part (a big part of the SOP in our cases) to fit each program. He was not referring to tailoring the "fit" part, which is what you did.

 

This is correct (also on my use of disingenuous). My assumption is that your interests/background would be 75% of your application and would remain largely untouched. Of course you will explain how the program can suit those interests--but that (to my mind) is a smaller part of the application than the initial presentation of your interests.

[5224]

This whole thread seems to use various terms in ways that are.. varied.. to say the least. This is probably leading to the confusion. So.. time for dissection..

 

It is said that you should mention professor and programs particularities in your statement of purpose in order to increase your chances of being accepted.

 

True.

 

But, aren´t the admission committee members tired of reading it, once and once again?

 

The "it" implies the mention of a POI because of the previous statement, but I think the sentiment might be that they're just tired of "it" (everything) in general. Either way, the answer is "Yes" but with some important qualifiers. There both good and bad ways to hit the points you need to make in a SOP. How it's written is just as important as what is written.

 

Can they tell that what you state is not genuine? Can a Statement of Purpose seems to be hollow and resonant because, although you did a great SOP, It looks like you just followed the "Formula"?

 

I think most of us were thrown by the comparison of "hollow" and "resonant" because you strive to make a statement "resonate" with a reader (a postive) whereas the word "resonant" is being used to further the idea of being "hollow" (a negative) as resonant is the accoustic quality of a hollow body.. resonate being the filling of that hollow space with sound. This illustrates why word choice is important, not just in meaning but in the context of the reader's experience. Readers will assume resonaTE because it fits the expectation, but makes no sense.. whereas the writer meant resonaNT because it further reinforced his/her statement.

 

Answering the questions.. Yes, they can tell when something is not genuinely stated. A great SOP however is not "hollow" - there also seems to be some confusion there on the part of the author. Following the formular does not make a great SOP. There is more to it. It is not a simple mathematical equasion. For simplication purposes we can call it the art of writing, and that art is more than the formula we often see touted as the way to write an SOP. Consider a paint-by-numbers... it has the basics, but following it carefully you most certainly did not create another Starry Night. Why? Because there is more to painting than fields of color. Layering, adjacency, texture and stroke.. to name a few. Things the guideline wont tell you about, but without the guideline you're more off track than you'd ever be with it.

 

I am asking this because, maybe they are not interested in that kind of information since they know that students can simply make a vague research of the program and to mention some of their centers, professor, facilities, etc.

 

Indirect inference time.. you made a vague research attempt and feel a little guilty..? That's what the statement implies to me. You're worried about them knowing you did it half-heartedly and are including it because you're 'supposed to.' Well, yes, that will be a problem and they will be able to tell. Again, it's not a matter of just hitting the points you need to hit them well. They're interested in hearing why a POI is a good fit to further your studies, they're not interested in "I googled the school and his name is there and I need to include a name because everyone said so and there it is.. word vomit!"

 

No word vomit. Go back and research it properly so you can speak about it appropriately.

Loric, what i tried to mean with resonant, is to be saying the same over and over again without meaning it(e.g. the politicians speeches).  Maybe the word is not appropriate in this context. I misused the world, since it is a latin descendant word and thus I thought about its latin original usage(I am a spanish and portuguese native speaker). 

Returning to the issue, i have to say that i did not make a vague research of my programs. Nevertheless, i have to admit that some of the professors and programs particularities I cited, I just did it because of following the ´formula´ in order to increase my chances. The thing is that I was not interested in  any professor. I just was interested in the program as a whole. But my undergraduate adviser, told me that i should mention a professor because that something applicants "must" do. 

 

[Loric]

But that's just it.. if you can't find a reason one particular prof in a program is the most interesting or promising, you're not doing yourself any favors when applying.

 

You know you want to go to grad school. I get that, we all do. However, if you're not working where your interests are and with someone who can position you properly and train you properly then it's a waste of time. It's not that there's only one choice - but graduate programs are not one-size-fits all. Not at all. There's too much specificity.

[Canis]

But that's just it.. if you can't find a reason one particular prof in a program is the most interesting or promising, you're not doing yourself any favors when applying.

 

You know you want to go to grad school. I get that, we all do. However, if you're not working where your interests are and with someone who can position you properly and train you properly then it's a waste of time. It's not that there's only one choice - but graduate programs are not one-size-fits all. Not at all. There's too much specificity.

 

Another thing worth considering is a different cultural model for the role of the PhD. For example, in most European schools, PhDs are jobs you apply for. There are open calls - but most of them are positions with topics already decided  - you apply to work on a specific problem that the university wants to fund. In many ways education in the EU is contrary to the North American model where a students individuality and their choice play a bigger role. I wonder if some of that might be at issue here.