Statements of purpose—should they be tailored?

[overoverover]

This is probably old hat at this point, but I couldn't find a discussion elsewhere. 

I'm basically done with my sample (all of the profs who have read it agree), so now I'm revisiting my statements of purpose. I originally tailored each statement for each school. However, it's hard for me to shake the feeling that they all read a bit ad hoc, as if I wrote a generic statement and then sprinkled in some stuff about each department (because this is exactly what I did!). 

I'm considering just sending in my generic statement. I think it flows better. And now that I'm seriously thinking about whether to tailor or not, I'm not really seeing any pros, just cons. Thoughts?

[NathanKellen]

I absolutely think you should tailor your personal statements, if only ever so slightly. The only reason I wouldn't do it is if you didn't have enough time.

[Between Fields]

Not tailoring the statement to each program would be a bad idea.

[Kantianisms]

It depends on what you mean by tailoring. Have you sufficiently shown why you would be a good fit for that program? Perhaps the explanation of your interests is sufficient for every program you're applying to. If not, you should do some extra tailoring.

[overoverover]

Thanks for the input so far. Here's what I mean in more detail. By 'tailoring' I mean something like 'naming specific professors.'

Currently, my statement is set up like this:

Introduction: I explain quickly why I'm applying (since I am attempting to transfer from a PhD program), which leads me to my areas of interest.

Areas of Interest: I have two paragraphs in this section. One is on metaphysics and the other on philosophy of language. I explain what I've done so far and what I could see myself researching (emphasizing the connection between my interests). 

Conclusion: Here, I mention some more about my background–—particularly, some workshops and conferences I've attended, most of which were more formally oriented. I also mention the extent of my logic education (this was recommended to me by a letter-writer). 

The way I see it, I make it really clear what my interests are, and thus anybody in the department would know who I'd be a good fit to work with. However, if I were to exclude someone that to them was an obvious fit, then that could be a detriment (that advice is straight off the Splintered Mind). 

Consider a place like Rutgers. They have tons of philosophers of language. I can't feasibly name them all; it'd be obvious I was just listing every philosopher who had a similar interest to mine. But excluding some professors (which would be more due to ignorance—I haven't read the work of every professor that works at every department I'm applying to) could also be bad. Does this worry make sense?

[philstudent1991]

generic statement, plus program specific info only when you really know what you're talking about and it's an obvious fit. just naming names isn't going to get you anywhere.

[surefire]

 

The way I see it, I make it really clear what my interests are, and thus anybody in the department would know who I'd be a good fit to work with. However, if I were to exclude someone that to them was an obvious fit, then that could be a detriment (that advice is straight off the Splintered Mind).

 

Thanks for the elaboration, it makes it easier to see where you're coming from.

 

This sentence that I've quoted is where you're going off the rails a little bit. You are making a mistake in assuming that the addcomm is going to go ahead and do the work of mentally slotting you in with some available profs. They have hundreds of apps to read, you can't expect them to do this, this is work that YOU should be doing - that is, articulating a RELEVANT research fit with some AVAILABLE faculty. You are not hedging your bets by avoiding any tailoring at the risk of excluding a potential POI - that is a weak and paralyzing approach, better to just DO YOUR BEST to research the department/program and try to account for a good chunk of the prospective fits (and maybe name one or two of the MOST relevant, as determined by your research effort). The statement is not a test with one right answer, where you can avoid flunking because you're leaving up to the adcomm to project the correct response; you might not end up working with the faculty that you name - adcomms KNOW this - the "test" is seeing whether or not you can articulate your interests aptly and whether or not you can identify resources that make sense. You should generally aim to establish "fit" in two respects: why THIS discipline and why THIS institution/program. You've established a great statement for the former, now you need to tailor a bit to capture the latter. I would suggest a sentence or two at the end of your "areas of interest" bit, where you can connect it by stating that your interests would be extended/cultivated by (specific resource in program) given (something relevant about that resource that parallels your interests). It doesn't HAVE to be a faculty member; I'm in a different field, and sometimes people cite program specializations or department conferences or a university's research institute that can be relevantly connected to their interests. You don't HAVE to read the work of every prof in the department (that is an anemic rationale for not doing the "fit" work); look at faculty pages and see who has listed areas of interest that parallel yours, and then skim through THEIR articles (and check to see if maybe they're going on sabbatical before naming them); faculty interests do not have to DIRECTLY mirror yours or be "obvious" on first blush (if they already had a faculty person doing your EXACT interests, they wouldn't take you anyway right? what would be the point?), the point is to find someone relevant and articulate the fit.

 

Best of luck, you've made a good start here!

Edited October 14, 2014 by surefire

[MorganFreemanlives]

i wonder if now, we are just creating self fulfilling prophecies of added difficulties lol.

 

not that i can blame anyone for attempting to improve their chances in any way

[Hypatience]

I did not tailor my statement whatsoever and I did well at a lot of the places you're applying. They don't really get looked at very closely and I'd say it's probably the most unimportant part of your application.  

[Between Fields]

I did not tailor my statement whatsoever and I did well at a lot of the places you're applying. They don't really get looked at very closely and I'd say it's probably the most unimportant part of your application.  

 

In my experience, it's the exact opposite from what you're stating. The personal statement is the piece of your application that tells the committee not only why you want to get a PhD, but why you want to get it there. 4.0's with excellent GRE scores are a dime a dozen (especially in the humanities), and there's only so much a writing sample can tell a committee without an SoP explaining what that applicant's research trajectory might look like. I still get the grad director referring to things I said in my personal statement, half a semester into my program. 

 

surefire is right; connect the dots for the committee. Besides, if you start researching the faculty and figure out that there's not actually anyone there that you'd want to work with, maybe you'll realize you don't want to apply there after all. The SoP is as much a writing-to-think exercise as it is a platform to get you into grad school.

[maxhgns]

The only downside to tailoring is the extra work involved--and that's hardly a downside, since it basically entails doing your homework properly. When you're competing against 300 other excellent candidates, nobody is going to connect the dots for you: they want to see you've done your homework, and (especially in your case) that you aren't going to drop out or try to transfer again. Besides, writing samples are often sent to the very faculty you indicate you want to work with. While it's true that, in the scheme of things, the SOP isn't all that important, I think it would be foolish to ignore it: it's an area of your application over which you have a great deal of control, and it's not that hard to do it well. Show (rather than tell) why you would fit perfectly into that particular department--exploit their cross/Inter-disciplinary offerings, their certificate options, show your enthusiasm for their pluralism, etc. (so long as you're being genuine). That stuff really can (and does) make a difference.

[Gnothi_Seauton]

I don't think it matters much either way.  The committee can look at an SoP and know pretty much immediately who an applicant could work with.  Naming names is valuable only if you've read a fair amount of some faculty member's work and can articulate very clearly why you'd be a good fit with that person.  And even then, it's not *that* valuable.  I highly doubt any decision has ever turned on whether an applicant names names.  I think many decisions turn on fit, but I don't think how effectively a candidate names names is how the adcomm evaluates fit.  Though, as the commenters from other disciplines note, the norms vary from discipline to discipline.  Maybe it's true that some departments like to see it.  But my sense is that in philosophy it's not really required.  You might want to do it if it isn't clear from your statement of your interests why you're a good fit, but then again, if that's not clear, you probably shouldn't be applying to that program.  

[Monadology]

I've heard stuff both ways on naming names (I emphasized particular strengths of the program without naming names), but I would definitely recommend tailoring. After the first five or so applications I had all the area-of-interest paragraphs I needed to combine for each statement of interest, which meant I only had to add in some program specific flavoring for each application. I imagine it can only help, unless you appear to be boot-licking or something like that. 

[overoverover]

Thanks again for all the input, everyone. I'll be doing some tailoring, though I've decided against naming names—I also spoke to my advisor, and she recommended I avoid it (her reasons: it can look like filler, department politics can be strange/hard to navigate as an outsider, and everybody knows that incoming graduate students' interests might change). But I do appreciate all the replies! I'll be keeping your words in mind as a finish up my statements.

[BeatrizBear]

I've heard stuff both ways on naming names (I emphasized particular strengths of the program without naming names), but I would definitely recommend tailoring. After the first five or so applications I had all the area-of-interest paragraphs I needed to combine for each statement of interest, which meant I only had to add in some program specific flavoring for each application. I imagine it can only help, unless you appear to be boot-licking or something like that. 

 

I think this is the best advice. Speak about specific things about the program that you think fit you so that the statement of purpose is tailored to the program, but don't go far enough to name names. 

[jalison]

Have you emailed any of the people in the department? If you email them saying "hi my name is _______,I'm graduating from _________ with ________ (or graduated from) and I am applying to ________ program. I'm really interested in your research on blah blah blah etc." - try to start a dialogue with people before you do the application. If it goes well then you can mention them in the SoP and say "I've even discussed with Professor Jones about blah research" and they might even talk to the adcomm about how you seem like a good fit to the program. I had an advisor suggest to me to do this for each school and they said I should expect about 50% of profs to reply.