Sample Statement of Purpose For Your Perusal

[TheRufus]

Hey everyone,

 

I thought it would be helpful to post about Statements of Purpose. Here's mine, and some things I wish I'd done differently. I'm hoping this specific example can be helpful to some of those out there looking to apply next cycle.

 

Quick note on my background: Ultimate goal was a PhD program, so applied to five doctoral programs where I had a really good fit (down from an initial list of 10+) and two master's programs as "back up". When I applied, I had only my undergraduate degree (BA in Journalism and Political Science) and one year of professional work experience. (Oh, and an undergraduate thesis. I haven't seen a single instance of someone straight out of undergrad successfully going into a PhD program without an undergraduate thesis.) I was rejected from four of the five PhD programs I applied to (UPenn Annenberg, UPenn Poli Sci [since I'm interdisciplinary], University of Maryland, Stanford), and accepted with full funding for both years to both master's programs I applied to (University of Delaware, American University). I was waitlisted at University of Southern California; they ended up extending me an offer to attend with five years of full funding (which they offer to all those they accept) three days before the final intent to enroll deadline, which I later took. Based on my rate of acceptance, you can take my example with a grain of salt; however, I did get an excellent response from the two master's programs I applied to and even though I was waitlisted for only one doctoral program, ultimately got in to my second choice school. Most wait lists are comprised of students that would do well in the program, but there are simply more students than available spots, so they have to prioritize, and your position is often more of an external numbers game than a reflection of your quality. Even in the best programs, many students get off the wait list and are extended an offer, so my statement of purpose did ultimately get me into USC Annenberg, even if it wasn't a direct offer right out of the gate.

 

A few things I wish I'd known/done differently:

— Read Graduate Admissions Essays, Fourth Edition: Write Your Way into the Graduate School of Your Choice by Donald Asher sooner. It had great examples of essays to analyze and critique, as well as exercises to help get the contents of my statement out of my brain and into my word processor. I wish I'd found this in the summer before, instead of mid-November.

— Get more feedback from professors (on admission committees) on my statement of purpose. I only sent it to my letter writers, who basically said "Looks great!" My peers and parents caught a few typos but were otherwise ill-suited to critique the style and rhetorical choices.

— Do far more drafts and rewrites. I didn't start my statement(s) until October, and due to work didn't do as many drafts as would have happened otherwise. I threw away a lot of "brain barf" before I was happy with what I was producing, and that was only in the last week and a half before the deadline so I didn't have time to really drill down.

— Copied and modified existing statements of purpose to be my own purely as an exercise in the style (plagiarism being properly frowned upon and, usually, imminently noticeable). This would have served me better than having "ideas" of statements in my head, which is partly why I think I threw away so much. 

— EMAILED PROFESSORS AHEAD OF TIME for information on the department, program, fit, what I was into and what they were into. And "ahead of time" as in the summer or early fall (before they had papers to grade and conferences to attend!). I didn't *really* get into application mode until November and by then it seemed a little late to email professors and discuss their research, my research, and the fit of the school in an organic way. I did for a few professors that I'd reached out to months before, so I had an established relationship, but lacking that relationship I didn't do it because it was too late. I'm not saying I should have when I realized, because it WAS too late, I'm saying I wish I'd reached out sooner.

 

The point of a statement of purpose is to give the committee a sense of yourself as an academic, as well as aspects of your personality that are crucial to your success in academia, and to let the committee know that you know what you're getting in to (what the program demands) and what the feel of the program is like and how you'll fit in there, as part of the collective department/school as well as how you relate to the faculty. This is how I did that (for better or worse).

 

My USC Statement: (modified slightly to remove personal names/details)

 

 

The spreadsheets lay in a cascade across my desk, red ink from the last two years screaming at me from the sea of mundane line items: $275,000 in 2008, and $80,000 in 2009. “How did this even happen?” I asked the administrative supervisor. “The publications board didn’t catch it until it was too late,” she replied.

 

 

This inauspicious conversation launched the most challenging year of my undergraduate education — my year as the editor in chief of my campus’ award-winning student newspaper, [newspaper name]. Years of involvement prepared me for the practical experience of heading the large student staff and directing its daily operations, but they did not equip me to manage the financial misfortune two years in the making, which was largely unknown to the staff. Revenue had dropped to less than half of its $[dollar amount] peak, and the failure of my two predecessors to adjust their expenses accordingly drained our reserve savings account. The stark reality I faced was that our daily paper, in print for nearly a century, might cease to exist in one year without drastic changes I alone was responsible for making.

 

 

Not only did my strict fiscal discipline ultimately balance the precarious budget by matching revenue and expenses, but I also succeeded in improving the quality of [newspaper name]’s design, editorial policies, and web presence. (See résumé.) I pride myself on my achievements at the paper; however, the experience led me to debate journalism as my chosen profession. Even disregarding the industry disruption caused by new technology and changing media consumption habits, my compelling interests lie in more prodigious questions.

 

 

I have become more convinced of the power of culture’s amalgamated stories, fictional and otherwise, a power perfectly captured by [author name] in his book, [book title] (1996): “[unique quote that perfectly...and I mean PERFECTLY...captures my perspective on subject, in a way that is profound and not replicable by me and thus worthy of quotation...in this case, subject being stories].” Stories mediate our relationships to our selves and our world by functioning as the glasses through which we see ourselves and others; they frame what we see and where we focus, as well as what stays in our periphery. They can add clarity or distort our perception. They can tint the emotional overlay, or they can add depth you would otherwise be unable to perceive. Stories are the lenses through which we interpret, describe, and imagine how the world is and how it should be. Exploring the impact of messages in the conglomerate — not only on the nebulous byproducts of the mind such as attitudes and stereotypes, but on concrete choices of action and behavior — has become my perennial inquiry, particularly with regard to my second passion: politics. Famously described as “who gets what, when and how” by Dr. Harold Lasswell, politics touches the lives of everyone...willingly or not. Modern political attitudes and behavior are inextricably linked to our amassed mediated stories. My broad research interests thus are mediated communication and political science, with an emphasis on information processing and psychological formations of beliefs and values.

 

Subsequent research into Ph.D. programs, which had intrinsic appeal throughout my undergraduate education, resulted in a deliberate decision to pursue the thesis option for completing my honor’s program requirements, in contrast to the roughly 80 percent of honors program students who choose to make a portfolio collection of their work. The prospect of my thesis brought an urge for more hands-on investigation than my previous research papers, which involved extended visits to the campus library, digging through microfiche and journal stacks alike. I decided to do an experiment rather than archival, database, or survey research, one that incorporated both of my undergraduate major departments: political science, and journalism and media studies. My first venture into experimental research design affirmed my passion for the application of the scientific process to questions of social science, particularly with how entertainment media messages in the aggregate influence internal attitudes and stereotypes, as well as concrete choices and changes in political actions, behavior, and civic engagement, and the concurrent impact on political institutions and actors.

 

I drew on theories introduced during one of my favorite media studies courses, [course name], taught by Dr. [professor name], the executive director of the [fancy center for the study of things name] at [university name]. Cultivation theory, framing and priming stood in stark contrast to the journalistic ideals of objectively reported truth, independent of influence or variations in perception. The theories of the former were more in keeping with my experiences than the ideals of the latter. I was also inspired by outside reading suggested by Dr. [professor name], as well as that of my other professors: Dr. [professor name], who later became my thesis reader; Dr. [professor name], my eventual thesis advisor, and Dr. [professor name]. While a complete list of the scholarly works that contributed to my academic epistemology would require far more space than this essay allows, it includes books from popular presses such as those by [long list of academic authors who published books for mainstream readers], as well as scholarly articles and academic press collections from researchers such as [long list of academic authors whose famed expertise is only known by other researchers in the field]. While initially struggling to justify my anecdotal inference that recent evolutions in mediated stories in general and entertainment media in particular could have a “real-life” impact on politics, the research clarified the psychological mechanisms that explained my instincts and provided frameworks for investigating such phenomena myself.
 

My research interests and aspirations — difficult to fully explicate in an essay and which I expect to be expanded, modified, and complicated in the course of my graduate study — are best exemplified in a summary of my thesis, rather than in abstract terms. The final composition, [thesis title], earned the 2012 Outstanding Honors Thesis Award from the Honors Program at [university name]. The project I ultimately designed incorporated elements from four other experiments in media effects and politics research, [general description of the experiment methods, number of participants, and very general results]. (See writing sample.) The data produced was quite extensive, and I am currently drafting two scholarly articles based on the results for submission to academic journals.

 

The entire process taught me a great deal more about the theoretical and practical stages of social science research than the results of the experiment alone suggest. I appreciated the experience of exploring variations in administration that contributed to a rigorous research design, the practical considerations of wrangling hundreds of subjects and maintaining standard scientific research practices to ensure results were statistically sound, the awareness that even the most mundane aspects of the enterprise were crucial to its overall success. I even enjoyed the invalidation of nearly half of my hypotheses, because the questions raised by the results are more exciting than the setback of unsupported predictions.

 

Ultimately, while my journalism experiences challenged me interpersonally and practically, my thesis was more academically demanding and intellectually stimulating. My success prompted me to seek out programs geared toward political communication research, which led me to the University of Southern California. Initially my interest stemmed from the Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism’s prominent position on the National Communication Association’s list of political communication programs, but my enthusiasm increased with a detailed exploration of your offerings and my experience at the Prospective Graduate Student Visit Day. One graduate student in particular, [student name], was particularly encouraging, and her frank breakdown of the program’s rigor and friendly advice for improving my prospects were essential to my decision to apply. The most prominent element, however, was USC Annenberg’s distinct atmosphere, remarkably different from other communication doctoral programs, [description of your perception of the "feel" program and why you like it]. During the doctoral student panel, [department chair or dean of graduate admissions or someone else important] remarked that “[quote that was particularly appealing to you, preferably about the program's approach or larger remarks about the discipline],” a perspective that is particularly refreshing to someone seeking to [something you want to do that explains why the quote appeals to you].
 

All of these unique aspects of the USC Annenberg program will contribute to my ultimate career goal as a researcher, whether that be at a research university, a non-profit or government institution, or in the private sector (though I am by no means averse to teaching, as my résumé attests). Naturally, the presence of faculty whose research interests align with my own, creating a promising potential for learning, is a deciding factor as well. Notably, Dr. [professor name] and Dr. [professor name] have a history of research interests that involve the intersection of politics and communication. Dr. [professor name], Dr. [professor name] and Dr. [professor name] have also conducted recent research on political campaigns, entertainment and news media effects, and content patterns that are particularly galvanizing. I would also seek out Dr. [professor name] at the Department of Political Science, as her research on public opinion, emotions in politics, and civic engagement is particularly relevant to my own interests.

 

I look forward to the vigorous program of study and intellectually stimulating environment I know USC Annenberg will provide. 

 

 

 

 

Notes on some of my deliberate strategies: (Culled from all the resources I read about statements and examples I found and analyzed...this is mostly in the order the strategies appear in the statement)

 

— Told a vivid story about myself with specific details that explained something the committee needed to know through SEEING rather than TELLING (yeah yeah, they are seeing through my telling, but you know...it's like the moral of the fairy tale, way more effective when the person concludes it after hearing the story than if you just stated it in one sentence up front)...in this case, it was about why a lot of my extra curriculars and training and accomplishments were in a trade I was no longer pursuing (journalism). 

— Story and statement in general was to demonstrate my writing ability...giving a sense of narration, flow, and readability that drops occasional "big vocab words" and academicese without too much jargon, which sounds boring, especially after a prof reads 200+ essays of it in a row as admissions committees tend to do.

— Referred to my other application materials rather than repeating the information...this turned my app into a coherent packet where each new piece provided some new details that merited attention, rather than saying the same thing in 3 different ways in 3 different places.

— Explained how I changed an approach to something and that not being a problem.

— Explained my philosophy toward my subject...not just naming what my research interests are (though that is crucial, obviously), but how I thought about them conceptually, and applied them to the world. Note that I still listed my research interests specifically, but I didn't just treat them like line items on a survey. Got a little poetic and philosophical to show my personality, without going overboard.

— Showed that I know how to quote someone properly...sparingly, when what they have to say is crucial to understanding the entire discipline *or* when what they say is so astoundingly profound that to paraphrase it would diminish the point.

— Showed that I decided to pursue a PhD quite a while ago and planned ahead of time, going out of my way to prepare myself for it with challenging projects in undergrad (which I was successful at), rather than doing so on a whim or because I didn't know what else to do.

—Showed that I had the option of doing something easier to graduate and chose to do something harder and more scholarly to challenge myself (undergrad thesis), which also showed how that was different even among the higher quality students at my school.

— Showed that I knew the difference between looking up journal articles in the library and actual scholarly research...the creation and collection of new data that should PRODUCE an article, not just reading what other scholars have done.

— Connected my thesis to my research interests.

— Showed that I know how to name drop, both through doing it and through not overdoing it (mentioning someone and their accomplishments without beating someone over the head with it; giving credit where credit is due to scholars and mentors who helped and guided you...something VERY IMPORTANT to the academics who will be reviewing your application).

— Showed that I am familiar with popular and academic works, as well as emphasizing that explaining your true level of familiarity with the literature is not possible in the space given.

— Showed that I understood crucial concepts in social science research by describing my application of them (via my thesis).

— Acknowledged that my interests may be changed by the experience of graduate school, and that that is expected and not a problem.

— Showed that I understand that academia requires publications (if I had any, even in press, I would have said so, but I had nothing even submitted yet so I just put in that I was going to submit them since that was the best I could do).

— Showed that I understood the frustrations and banality that was part of academia and research...and even that BEING PROVEN WRONG was a thing that would happen, regularly (as a feature, not a bug), and I could handle it.

— Mentioned the school I was applying to SPECIFICALLY. You don't *have* to do this in only one place, but in *at least* one place. I preferred to do it a lot to make it even more customized.

— Mention accomplishments the school should be proud of as one of its main draws (in my case, its position on the NCA list).

— MENTION THAT I VISITED THE SCHOOL. So crucial if you can manage it...go to their prospective student events. Show you're interested. Ask questions. MENTION THINGS YOU LEARNED AND LIKED FROM THIS VISIT. This will make you stand out *so much*. Do it via online if nothing else, via emails with professors or students if no formal online "visit day".

— Showed that I "got" what made my school "different". Most schools are trying to brand themselves in some way...maybe they are all about quantitative research, maybe they are all about competition, maybe they are all about collaboration, maybe they are all about students being entrepreneurial, whatever. Figure out what they want to emphasize, what their "brand" and approach is, and show how you "get" that and like it and why you're a good fit for that. Get it in quote form from one of the major players if you can. This is a huge portion of the "fit" element that people agonize over...this is about the department/school as a collective whole.

— Show I had thought about the future beyond the PhD, that I have ultimate career goals and that the PhD is the key to those goals. (Note: MOST SCHOOLS are averse to applicants who even hint that they are cool with taking a non-academic job when they are done. USC Annenberg is not, so I felt comfortable mentioning the government and private sector options with them. Tread carefully here.)

— Show that I researched the faculty AT THAT SPECIFIC SCHOOL, knew their work and interests, and how they fit with mine. (This is the second part of the "fit" equation.) Keep in mind that you're essentially name-dropping potential mentors and dissertation advisors, so this should not be done casually. If you can contact these people ahead of time via email to get a feel for them that's ideal, but I by and large did not. I spent the bulk of my customization time on this, even though it doesn't make up a huge portion of my statement in terms of real estate. (Look up their actual publications and the classes they teach, not just generic research interests. Check out LATEST ONES too, when you're name-dropping Academic All Stars whose most influential work may have been from a couple decades ago; they might have moved on to a completely different area of research and you won't get far saying you want to work with them on something they branched off from ten years ago.) This is easier said than done and I suspect my success at USC and failure at the other schools was in no small part due to me getting better information in this area and applying it more effectively than I did for the other schools.

 

The hardest part was doing all of these things in a coherent narrative, that conformed to their space requirements, and customizing it for each school. (I did a version of this for every school I applied to, PhD and master's, though it was harder for those I wasn't able to visit and contact faculty about.) Keep in mind I have a bachelor's degree only (from a state school, no less), and no publications at all, and most of my achievements in undergrad were related to another field. 

 

Hope this is helpful to someone out there...good luck!

Edited July 17, 2014 by TheRufus

[Dedi]

I'm not sure about political communication admissions, so take this advice with a grain of salt...

 

I've found that the statement of purpose should actually speak to the adcom. In other words, use plain English and be precise. I do not advise towards using "big vocab words." It doesn't impress anyone and it makes it extremely hard to read. Avoid passive tense if possible. Passive tense muddles statements and doesn't sound confident.

 

You should be able to precisely articulate your research interests. You're going to have to do that every time someone asks you about your research. You can't refer them to such-and-such paper. Otherwise it kind of sounds like you don't really care to take the time to reflect on what you truly want to do.

 

I think the biggest piece of advice I can give is to sound/be confident and enthusiastic about your research. You need to be confident to pursue your research interests, and if you have a "lab" then you need that confidence to drive the undergraduate students to be enthusiastic with you. Graduate school isn't for people who want to stand in the background--scholarships in particular are looking for tomorrow's leaders.

 

This is just based on my experiences.

[TakeruK]

I agree with Dedi that the SOP needs to speak directly to the adcom. Definitely use plain English and be precise, this is not a lovely piece of prose, it's a straight forward statement of why you are interested in their graduate program. Maybe this is very different from field to field though? My advice to people writing in STEM fields is to avoid scientific jargon. The committee is often made up of people from all fields of study within the department, and you don't want to alienate the people who don't study what you are applying to study. In addition, clarity is highly valued so if you can explain a complex idea using simple words, that would be desirable. Experts in your field of study will nod along, confident that you know your stuff and non-experts will appreciate the way you distilled the complex idea into something they can understand with only 30 seconds of processing. The readers have to read a ton of SOPs and if your SOP makes them have to reread a sentence/paragraph a few times to understand its meaning, then that would be both annoying and a sign of poor communication ability. 

 

The way I envisioned my SOP was that I imagined myself having a drink (coffee/tea/pop/beer/whatever) with the faculty of the department I'm applying to and they ask "Why do you want to be part of our program?" The answer to that question was basically the thesis of my SOP and then further paragraphs expanded on each of my reasons and gave evidence that I am capable of succeeding in their program and that I am someone they would want to hire/have in their program.

 

So, keep it plain and simple is what I think. Don't use words that you would not use if you were standing next to someone, holding a cup of whatever and chatting about your research interests. Make sure you explain everything to the level of detail required and no further. Don't refer reader to any other source (after all, you wouldn't hand them these things, you/they are holding a drink!). 

 

This strategy worked very well for me but it's always hard for any of us to really know what parts of our applications were good and what parts bad. For all I know, I might have gotten my offers despite of my SOPs  

[beyondaboundary]

 

 

The way I envisioned my SOP was that I imagined myself having a drink (coffee/tea/pop/beer/whatever) with the faculty of the department I'm applying to and they ask "Why do you want to be part of our program?" The answer to that question was basically the thesis of my SOP and then further paragraphs expanded on each of my reasons and gave evidence that I am capable of succeeding in their program and that I am someone they would want to hire/have in their program.

 

So, keep it plain and simple is what I think. Don't use words that you would not use if you were standing next to someone, holding a cup of whatever and chatting about your research interests. Make sure you explain everything to the level of detail required and no further. Don't refer reader to any other source (after all, you wouldn't hand them these things, you/they are holding a drink!). 

 

This strategy worked very well for me but it's always hard for any of us to really know what parts of our applications were good and what parts bad. For all I know, I might have gotten my offers despite of my SOPs

 

This was my mantra writing my SOP...

[TheRufus]

Hello Dedi,

 

A quick response to some of your comments...

 

I agree that in general it's advisable to use plain English and not get bogged down in overly pompous or verbose language, or too much jargon (which I like to call "academicese") in your statement. However, I think it's actually very advisable to drop a few of these terms here and there, lightly sprinkled throughout your statement (and properly used) to *hint* that you have high reading comprehension and writing ability. I believe my actual statement illustrates this. For example, I used the following words — "inauspicious", "prodigious", "amalgamated", "perennial", "intrinsic", "epistemology", "explicate", "exemplified", "averse" and "galvanizing" — sprinkled throughout the 1,700+ word statement, properly applied in context of course. It's only 10 words total, but they are not common in everyday speech (indeed, I can't remember the last time I used these in conversation, even with another academic, and certainly not in casual conversation with a non-academic, even though they very well may know what they mean). The New Yorker does something similar in their book reviews; you get one, maybe two "big vocab words" for every 300-500 words of "normal" text. I recommend this, but only if it comes naturally (you use words you know well and that fit organically into what you're talking about, rather than ones you pick out ahead of time) and is used sparingly (as I did, with roughly 1 percent or less of your total words being "fancy"). Similarly, I have had conversations with academics where "phenomenologically" and "ontologically" are used in discussing their research interests, and that makes sense because they are specifically talking about something in their discipline that they are pursuing, even if those terms are not well-used outside their fields (and I had to force them to define them for me). Using them in their statements would be appropriate, I think, IF done so sparingly and with clear demonstration that they understand the terms, and I would use synonyms or casual English translations for them in addition to the terms themselves. I suspect similar problems with jargon occur in the hard sciences and life sciences...I've read through a couple biochemistry and kineseology papers where I didn't understand a solid 10 percent of the words they used, but they likely would be understood just fine by the committees in their fields.

 

With regard to referring to other materials, I stand by that this strategy is a good way to avoid *repeating* information or providing an unnecessary level of detail for a statement, or to refer to accomplishments that don't apply to the field that you nevertheless want to mention. In my statement, I referred the committee to look at my resume rather than detail all my accomplishments at the student newspaper, which are impressive (I think) but not really relevant to my field. I had a paragraph of detail describing the demonstrable changes I made at the newspaper on my resume, but it wasn't necessary to go into it again in my statement. Similarly, I referred them to my writing sample for a detailed discussion of my thesis methods (I sent them my methods and results sections), but I summarized the methods and findings in 2-3 sentences in the body of the statement itself. Reducing my thesis to 2-3 sentences really does cut out a lot of what I did and found, but I did so because harping on your thesis too much can make you seem too narrow in your research interests...and I was confident that all my thesis work was better represented by the writing sample anyway. I also referred them to my resume when I discussed my willingness to teach, as my resume shows all my teaching and tutoring experience in detail, but I wanted the focus of my statement to be on my research. I think this strategy can tie your total application package together in a way that makes it seem more organic while letting the individual pieces of the application speak for themselves.

 

It's worth pointing out that I posted this in the Social Sciences > Communication subcategory for a reason...the strategies for my SOP and those you use, Dedi, in your neurosciences application and TakeruK in an application for a planetary sciences program might be different, I just know this worked for me.

 

Hope that clarifies...thanks for taking the time to write back! Your other points...passive voice, enthusiasm...are well taken.

Edited July 17, 2014 by TheRufus

[jujubea]

I agree with Dedi that the SOP needs to speak directly to the adcom. Definitely use plain English and be precise, this is not a lovely piece of prose, it's a straight forward statement of why you are interested in their graduate program. Maybe this is very different from field to field though? My advice to people writing in STEM fields is to avoid scientific jargon. The committee is often made up of people from all fields of study within the department, and you don't want to alienate the people who don't study what you are applying to study. In addition, clarity is highly valued so if you can explain a complex idea using simple words, that would be desirable. Experts in your field of study will nod along, confident that you know your stuff and non-experts will appreciate the way you distilled the complex idea into something they can understand with only 30 seconds of processing. The readers have to read a ton of SOPs and if your SOP makes them have to reread a sentence/paragraph a few times to understand its meaning, then that would be both annoying and a sign of poor communication ability. 

 

The way I envisioned my SOP was that I imagined myself having a drink (coffee/tea/pop/beer/whatever) with the faculty of the department I'm applying to and they ask "Why do you want to be part of our program?" The answer to that question was basically the thesis of my SOP and then further paragraphs expanded on each of my reasons and gave evidence that I am capable of succeeding in their program and that I am someone they would want to hire/have in their program.

 

So, keep it plain and simple is what I think. Don't use words that you would not use if you were standing next to someone, holding a cup of whatever and chatting about your research interests. Make sure you explain everything to the level of detail required and no further. Don't refer reader to any other source (after all, you wouldn't hand them these things, you/they are holding a drink!). 

 

This strategy worked very well for me but it's always hard for any of us to really know what parts of our applications were good and what parts bad. For all I know, I might have gotten my offers despite of my SOPs

 

One of the programs I'm applying to specifically states that you need to cite sources in your SOP!  

Sounds like every school is different.

 

This was excellent - many thanks to the OP!

[Duna]

One of the programs I'm applying to specifically states that you need to cite sources in your SOP!  

Sounds like every school is different.

 

This was excellent - many thanks to the OP!

Uhm, yeah? Sure... If you talk about a specific theory you're interested, you'll have to cite your source. Sounds to me like: If you include specific theories, please make sure to cite your sources properly. 

[The Pedanticist]

Should one in the SOP discuss any part of the application that might be weak?  I mean specifically my GRE Quantitative score which is low, but I have A's in statistics classes and am in the process of publishing a quan communication paper.  

[lyrehc]

I would not address weaknesses because you might draw attention to things they are okay with.

 

I posted my SOP in the sociology forum. It was brief, conversational, and explained why I wanted to study in that program. I truly believe that is all you need - and something that sounds like you is much better than being one of many who don't let personality to shine through.  JMO.

[The Pedanticist]

I would not address weaknesses because you might draw attention to things they are okay with.

 

I posted my SOP in the sociology forum. It was brief, conversational, and explained why I wanted to study in that program. I truly believe that is all you need - and something that sounds like you is much better than being one of many who don't let personality to shine through.  JMO.

 

My quant score is below the 50 percentile so I'm pretty sure that they will see it as a negative.  Thankfully, I'm retaking it and everything suggests I will do considerably better, but for my one application I'll have to keep it.    

[The Pedanticist]

Also, where and how do you talk about your conversations with professors?  Specifically, when I've talked with prof X and he's said he would like to work with me.  Since he won't be on the Adcomm I want them to know about our mutual interest in working together without being over the top.  

[lyrehc]

I'm linking you to my post in sociology.  The professor who I wanted to work with was not on the adcomm but mentioning wanting to work with him allowed them to see if he had talked to me and wanted to work with me.

[The Pedanticist]

Got it.  Thanks!

[The Pedanticist]

 

 I applied to (UPenn Annenberg, UPenn Poli Sci [since I'm interdisciplinary], University of Maryland, Stanford), and accepted with full funding for both years to both master's programs I applied to (University of Delaware, American University). I was waitlisted at University of Southern California; they ended up extending me an offer to attend with five years of full funding (which they offer to all those they accept) three days before the final intent to enroll deadline, which I later took. Based on my rate of acceptance, you can take my example with a grain of salt; however, I did get an excellent response from the two master's programs I applied to and even though I was waitlisted for only one doctoral program, ultimately got in to my second choice school. Most wait lists are comprised of students that would do well in the program, but there are simply more students than available spots, so they have to prioritize, and your position is often more of an external numbers game than a reflection of your quality. Even in the best programs, many students get off the wait list and are extended an offer, so my statement of purpose did ultimately get me into USC Annenberg, even if it wasn't a direct offer right out of the gate.

 

I'm a bit confused about the instructions online for the USC SOP's.  It says 

 

 

The Statement of Purpose is an integrated expression of your current intellectual interests and desired 

future academic agenda. You should articulate the theories, frameworks, and intellectual arguments of 

the scholars who have most influenced your thinking and indicate how they have contributed to your 

current status as an academic. Also, you should discuss how you would like to explore and expand 

these and other ideas in your doctoral work. 

 

Please envision both the broad picture of scholarship you would like to pursue and one or two 

representative examples of research that you would like to conduct in this context. Statements that 

express either mainstream or groundbreaking agenda, or both, are welcome as are comments on the 

implications of your research agenda for policy and society. Your Statement of Purpose must not 

exceed five pages in length.

 

 

It doesn't seem that they want much personal detail in the SOP.  Am I right in thinking this?  

Edited October 19, 2014 by The Pedanticist

[grad_wannabe]

I'm a bit confused about the instructions online for the USC SOP's.  It says 

 

 

It doesn't seem that they want much personal detail in the SOP.  Am I right in thinking this?  

 

Hi Pedanticist - I'm having trouble with my SoP for USC at this very moment. I have very little "personal experience" in mine, and onlysofar as it contributes to the "intellectual arguments of the scholars who have most influenced your thinking" component. 

[The Pedanticist]

Hi Pedanticist - I'm having trouble with my SoP for USC at this very moment. I have very little "personal experience" in mine, and onlysofar as it contributes to the "intellectual arguments of the scholars who have most influenced your thinking" component. 

 

I think I've figured out how to add some of my personal experiences without appearing to be gushy.  

 

Which area are you interested in?  Was it just me, or was it odd that it asks you to specify 5 scholars you want to work with on the school application?

 

Best of luck.  

Edited October 20, 2014 by The Pedanticist

[Duna]

People! That's the problem with not taking such a statement of purpose example (!!!) with a grain of salt...

 

Right now, you both seem to be making your assessments about the quality of your own SOPs based on pure anecdotal evidence of one (!!!) SOP. And this SOP could be complete shit for all we know because maybe (I am very sorry, you already have your spot and all is well, so please don't take this the wrong way rufus) they only admitted him/her after 3 other people declined and the fit of the research interests was great although the presentation in the SOP was crappy. Who knows?! And that's the point: Most of us don't have a clue whether our SOPs were helpful or not for getting into our programs. 

 

And they give you FIVE pages now. WTF! That's amazing. 

 

My own 2 cents on this:

Your research interests do not develop out of thin air. You are not some compilation of theories in a data collection machine that spits out theories or applied research or whatever hovering somewhere in a vacuum. Somehow you must have come into contact with your object of study or your favorite theoretical framework and I think that it's a transactional process that shapes such interests. So yes, imho you are allowed and probably supposed to mention why you have been influenced by certain people / methods / theories and why this is the kind of research you want to do and why YOU will be fucking awesome at doing it. 

I'm a mixed methods person and this is reflected in all I have been doing my whole life. The big picture of what I'm doing and why I am doing these things goes together with what I've studied before and worked on and so on. However, I do not think that this SOP is supposed to be some kind of prose piece sprinkled with a bunch of GRE words to show off how intellectual you are. FFS, it's obvious you can learn 1000 words on a list, you got this far, you are not a complete idiot. 

 

"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction." (Albert Einstein)

 

I think that dude nailed it. And that is also how I try to write because honestly, I don't need to prove through using highly sophisticated language that what I'm saying is smart. Or at least I hope I do not. That's my goal. So yeah. Some terminology is obviously needed to create common ground within a discipline and avoid ambiguity but apart from these terms I try to stay the hell away from talking like an old German philosopher. And I am German.