Writing an SOP when you don't know your research interests

[holamynameis]

Hi! I'm applying to graduate schools in Statistics (some PhD, some Master's). The thing is, my undergraduate degree is in Civil Engineering--not too unusual, most of the schools I'm applying to mention that their grad students often come from other fields, including schools that only have a PhD program.

 

I actually have a decent amount of experience in research through undergraduate programs and I think my letters of recommendation and my resume/CV will show that I'm an independent worker and capable of going through a PhD program. But, I have next to no idea what, specifically, I'd want to study. Yes, I think Statistics is cool and yes, I'm totally ready to spend the next four or so years of my life studying it, but I simply don't know enough to say, for example, "I want to study network modeling as applied to healthcare systems." 

 

I also don't know enough to name-drop or talk about my research interests in detail. Is this ok? I think I can find a general direction that I'd be interested in--but I'd rather it happened naturally, i.e. after taking grad-level courses.

 

Thanks in advance for any advice.

[TakeruK]

Normally, you don't want to be too specific in your research interest when writing your SOP anyways. In my opinion, your example of "network modeling as applied to healthcare systems" is already too specific! In astronomy, people generally classify themselves in two ways: the method they use and the class of object they study. For example, "method" usually means "theory", "observing/data collecting" or "instrument builder" and the class of object is very general like "planets" or "stars" or "galaxies" etc. So an astronomer's SOP might say something like they want their PhD work to be on collecting/analyzing data on planets around other stars. 

 

However, it's not really necessary to go into this much detail even. And I think especially since you are coming from a different background, it is understandable that you might not have specific research interests yet.

 

I think the main goal of the SOP is to convey to the admissions committee that you are very motivated and excited to pursue graduate studies. One way to do this is to show a good understanding of what research topic you want to tackle. However, that's not the only way. For people who might not know what they want to do (especially if they have limited research experience) or for people coming from different fields, I think the best thing to do is instead focus your SOP on your goals in graduate studies. What do you want to get out of the program and why is this program well equipped to help you reach these goals? In most programs, you don't need to have a predefined project before you start!!

[jujubea]

That was a really helpful answer, TakeruK.

 

I'm in a similar position - both types of programs I'm applying to are not my undergrad major, and while I have enough interest in both fields to make some specific research-interest statements, I would feel it would be disingenuous to claim I know precisely what things I'd like to study - part of why I'm doing the Master's is so I can get that more legit foundation in the field in order to carry out deeper, more meaningful research.

 

Good luck, holamynameis.

[holamynameis]

Thanks, jujubea! Good luck to you too.

 

TakeruK, your answer makes me feel a lot better about my SOP haha. Thanks so much.

[PeakPerformance]

I would have to disagree with TakeruK when it comes to your statements for PhD programs. You really are supposed to have a clearer sense of your research interests. You don't necessarily need to know what your dissertation project will address, but you at least need to be able to narrow down and categorize your interests. Without a clear sense of your interests, you can't articulate why a particular school you are applying to is a good choice for you. No one will necessarily hold you to coming up with a project that fits within the interests you've stated on your statement of purpose, but I think it is important that you position yourself as someone who will be entering into a PhD program with a clear sense of direction and purpose. The vaguer you are about your interests, the more doubts you will raise about the likelihood of your completing the program.

[bsharpe269]

I agree that you should have at least some idea, it doesnt have to be super specific but specific enough that the school can tell that you are a good fit. I am in biophysics and there are different subfields within that. I know alot about the subfield that I was pursue and I can suggest dissertation topics if asked. I wouldnt want to commit to any of them at this point though since I really enjoy everything in the subfield and would be willing to consider just about any project within it. All of the schools I am applying to are great fits since they have 3+ people in the subfield. I would be interested in doing rotations with any or all of them.

 

If you dont know enough to at least point towards the direction of your interests then I would say you should consider a masters first to get to know the field better. I dont mean this in a mean way... if you look through the posts of current grad students then it will be really clear why! You see people post here all the time about how they are in a good PhD program and have finally figured out what they want to study but there are no faculty in their departments studying this. Using myself as an example again, there are only around 10 schools in the country that are strong in my subfield. If I randomly chose a school before knowing my subfield then it is VERY unlikely that it would happen to be one of those 10. That means that I would have had to transfer which would also hurt my application since it shows that I really didnt know what I was getting into the first time. I think that career wise it would be much better to figure out what you want to study and then to apply to PhD programs that fit that. It is really common for people changing fields do do a masters since you will have a hard time deciding if you like a field and what you like about it if you havent really studied it. I am currently working on my MS because I also changed fields (from applied math to biophysics). Those are just my thoughts since it seems like people are in your shoes all the time and then end up mad at themselves for not knowing what they were getting themselves into. Goodluck!

[TakeruK]

I agree that a super strong application would have just enough specificity in your research interests that you can show a good fit. I don't know enough about different fields to give analogies/examples, but I still think my post above is specific enough. That is, for astronomers, you should know what type of object you might want to study and what approach you want to take (theory / observations / instrument). Then you can point to specific resources the University owns (people, telescopes, labs, equipments, computer clusters) that will help you get there. 

 

I also should point out that I am in a very multidisciplinary field. Planetary Science is also not usually offered as an undergrad major and in fact, only 1 current grad student in my program has an undergrad major in Planetary Science. The rest of us are about evenly split between Physics/Astronomy majors, Math majors, Geology majors, and Chemistry majors. So in that sense, all of us are "changing fields" and because of that, I feel that planetary science programs in the US are very open to vague research interests. In fact, when I emailed some professors asking if they would be willing to work with me on topic X if I applied, they told me that I should not know what I want to do yet, not until I go there and talk to people. Also, for those of us who did specify research interests, many of us switch topics at some point in the first year (in our first year, we pick two topics and then we can either decide to continue one of them for our dissertation or start something completely new). 

 

So, in my field, I feel like schools just prefer to admit good students and then support them on whatever they choose to study. My department's chair has explicitly told us this is how they hire professors too--they just hire the very best people and allow the department's research focus to change/evolve as the professors' interest evolve. Also, some professors say they have the same attitude towards their students--when asked what do they work on, they usually answer their own primary interest plus "whatever my students at the time are doing".

 

In my earlier post, I might have sounded like you don't need to know what you want to do at all. What I actually meant was something more like what bsharpe said above. I also want to point out that perhaps my view is a bit biased towards looser interests because I am in a multidisciplinary program and that I think multidisciplinary programs do not require as specific research interests. I definitely would not advise anyone to get a Masters in Planetary Science prior to a PhD -- the intro PhD courses in my field do not require any specific background (just general science/quantitative background) and I think anyone with a scientific undergrad degree can take the intro courses! Thus, the coursework phase of the PhD provides the foundation equivalent to getting a Masters. There are no advanced graduate courses in Planetary Science (that is, every single one of my core courses was accessible to undergrads). The field is not old enough to have such things and our program wants us to learn the advanced stuff through research, not the classroom.

[stats_applicant]

In contrast to some of the posts above, I can assure you that won't be expected to have much of an idea at all. Statistics is different from other disciplines in that many if not most graduate students didn't do their undergraduate work in statistics, so faculty understand (and expect!) that your research interests will be shaped by your first year experiences and in fact very few students end up doing what they thought they were interested in. Of course it helps to articulate why you want a degree in statistics and perhaps a few broad sub fields you think sound interesting, but you don't need anything beyond that. Talk about why you're switching to stats from civil engineering and how the civil degree makes you stand out -- I think that could be a cool story.

Head over to the stats sub forum for more discipline-specific advice.