What makes successful writing samples succeed?

[ecritdansleau]

Both satisfied and disappointed applicants alike have surely considered what aspects of your application sent it to the pile of the finalists or the rejected (Or why the Admit at one department and not at another).

And yet, I think consideration of this is beneficial for everyone as future scholars in the consideration of how the intellectual cream rises to the top (the very injustice or chaos of this process makes it all the more critical to investigate). If anyone is familiar with Semenza's book (On building an academic career in the humanities), you know that prospective graduate students have only scratched the surface of the challenges that they face in the continuous production of original, insightful knowledge. (Of course, we like such challenges.) As a prospective applicant myself, I'm somewhat fascinated by questions of what makes something intellectually viable (And thus what kind of thought process the adcoms have when they read applications in judgment of one's academic potential.)

So, what do you think made your application rise to the top or plummet to the abyss of denial? Either based on your own assessment, or actual corroborations from the schools to which you were admitted or not admitted? (Or even what your own advisors have said about what strengthens an application)

I find it peculiar that so many people seem to blame the quantitative things (grades, GREs), when time and time again, the writing sample seems to be the weightiest consideration of the application as a whole. Is this always true? And so then I wonder, more specifically, what makes a scholarly literary essay/article get noticed? What features of successful writing samples (and SOPS?) make them so intellectually stimulating and innovative? In regard to literary studies, what makes great writing great ? Was your writing sample specific to the period you proposed to study? Was it an in-depth iteration of your SOP? What are your intellectual interests and how did you bring this forth in your writing? Conversely, what are the potential pitfalls of the writing sample?

[jasper.milvain]

Actually, the school that I'm attending didn't require a writing sample at all.

But for my other apps, I used one or both of the papers I wrote during my MA that directly related to my period, 1880-1920. The things I did that I think worked (although who knows?) include:

-Showing methodological consistency over my samples and my SoP. They all dealt with material criticism and thing theory. As I result, I hope I looked like I've thought through my methodology and seriously engaged with a body of criticism, rather than bouncing around from feminism to Marxism to new historicism.

- Citing current sources. With the exception of early criticism that I needed for context, all of my secondary sources were from 2002 and up.

- Citing my supervisor/letter writer. Luckily, she had a very relevant book published recently that cited and was cited by other critics I used.

- Showing historical interest. For example, in my Oscar Wilde paper I used his talks on interior decorating, and dug up various other Victorian style guides. It shows that I think outside of the canon. It also follows through on the logic of my methodology.

- Showing a breadth of primary reading. My other paper is on H.G. Wells, who is the focus of my proposed dissertation, and I think I have 8-10 Wells sources in a 25 page paper, from his letters to his novels to his juvenile science writing. Hopefully it comes across that I've thought through his career in detail instead of just finding one really cool book and running with it. (Although that happened, too.)

Given that grad committees are going to be reading katrillions of the damn things, I'd assume that having quirky topics might have worked in my favor.

[ecritdansleau]

Thanks for the advice! The Oscar Wilde and style guides sounds interesting; I never would have thought of that! Wilde is one of favorite writers; he's so unbelievably clever.

I do think the methodology aspect is one that many applicants might forget but makes the entire application more coherent. The problem, I think, for applicants such as myself, is that I tend to focus more on structural interpretations and theory, and this is very passe (or so I've heard) in regard to current critical trends.

[jasper.milvain]

I don't think structuralism will get you far. I love reading semiotic theory, so I feel your pain, but you might want to switch methodologies. With your undergraduate papers, you just needed to be able to prove that you could deal with complex ideas, and structuralism worked. Your graduate work is all geared towards getting published eventually, and you need to be engaging in current discussions to get published. If you had to pick a group of people to allow into an intensive publishing worshop, wouldn't you check their samples for proof that they knew what publishable work looked like? It's pretty reasonable.

I see that you're currently working on your undegrad. I don't know if you've done a round of applications yet, or if you're accepted somewhere wonderful. If you're not accepted somewhere wonderful yet, you should take the standard piece of advice to pick a few journals that relate to the work you want to do and spend a few hours a week reading through them. Figure out the trends so that you know about them first hand, rather than through 'what they say'. Look at the authors--do they come from the kind of schools you think you might get into? do they have any special knowledge that you don't? In the process of coming up with a reasonable long term publishing goal, you can come to a much better understanding of how you fit into the system, and use that to make a case for your 'unpopular interests', or decide to shift them in a more current direction.

Publications are the coin of the realm. If your research isn't publishable, what purpose is it serving?