Writing sample question: Does it have to align with your primary interests?

[kalash]

Does the committee mostly look at whether the paper is good, or whether it matches your primary interests?  If you have a primary interest in epistemology but your sample is in ancient would that be a problem?  (Assuming someone teaches ancient where you are applying).

[Infinite Zest]

From what I've heard, it's mostly a case of whether or not the paper's good.

[overoverover]

Probably don't write about Hegel if you say in your statement you're really into using Bayesian models of language understanding or something like that, but ad coms certainly don't require that the sample is in your area of interest—just make it your best work to date.

[kalash]

Probably don't write about Hegel if you say in your statement you're really into using Bayesian models of language understanding or something like that, but ad coms certainly don't require that the sample is in your area of interest—just make it your best work to date.

Let's see...My main area of interest is in epistemology, esp. skepticism and the debate between epistemological naturalists and apriorists.  Some of my best work during my MA was done on Quine's naturalized epistemology, and I ended up writing a 30+ page paper on the topic.  I subsequently cut it down, but I still feel that it's not as focused as my paper on Plato's Theaetetus (which is about 24 pages), which is what I'm considering using for the majority of my schools.  The paper on Plato's Theaetetus critically examines his self-refutation argument against Protagorean relativism. In brief, it's a paper on truth-relativism, couched in a historical context.  Is this too far away from epistemology?  I'm interested in ancient as a secondary interest, but mostly only insofar as it touches on issues like relativism and skepticism.  (I'm interested, for example, in Sextus Empiricus and the relation between Pyrrhonian skepticism and infinitism in contemporary debates about justification).  

 

Would you mention in your personal statement why your writing sample isn't directly in your primary stated interest, if that were the case?

[Infinite Zest]

Let's see...My main area of interest is in epistemology, esp. skepticism and the debate between epistemological naturalists and apriorists.  Some of my best work during my MA was done on Quine's naturalized epistemology, and I ended up writing a 30+ page paper on the topic.  I subsequently cut it down, but I still feel that it's not as focused as my paper on Plato's Theaetetus (which is about 24 pages), which is what I'm considering using for the majority of my schools.  The paper on Plato's Theaetetus critically examines his self-refutation argument against Protagorean relativism. In brief, it's a paper on truth-relativism, couched in a historical context.  Is this too far away from epistemology?  I'm interested in ancient as a secondary interest, but mostly only insofar as it touches on issues like relativism and skepticism.  (I'm interested, for example, in Sextus Empiricus and the relation between Pyrrhonian skepticism and infinitism in contemporary debates about justification).  

 

Would you mention in your personal statement why your writing sample isn't directly in your primary stated interest, if that were the case?

 

Based on what you've said, in terms of quality, it looks like a close call between the Plato and the Quine paper. If this is true, it may not be a super clear cut case. Maybe ask professors for advice.

[Infinite Zest]

Let's see...My main area of interest is in epistemology, esp. skepticism and the debate between epistemological naturalists and apriorists.  Some of my best work during my MA was done on Quine's naturalized epistemology, and I ended up writing a 30+ page paper on the topic.  I subsequently cut it down, but I still feel that it's not as focused as my paper on Plato's Theaetetus (which is about 24 pages), which is what I'm considering using for the majority of my schools.  The paper on Plato's Theaetetus critically examines his self-refutation argument against Protagorean relativism. In brief, it's a paper on truth-relativism, couched in a historical context.  Is this too far away from epistemology?  I'm interested in ancient as a secondary interest, but mostly only insofar as it touches on issues like relativism and skepticism.  (I'm interested, for example, in Sextus Empiricus and the relation between Pyrrhonian skepticism and infinitism in contemporary debates about justification).  

 

Would you mention in your personal statement why your writing sample isn't directly in your primary stated interest, if that were the case?

 

Also, when are you applying? If you're shooting to apply a year from now, it might be worth taking the time to revise the Quine paper a bit more.

[Page228]

One university I just happened to look at said writing samples "should be on topics which are relevant to the subject of your proposed course of study." I'm sure some universities won't care so much about the choice of topic, but if you have any specific programs in mind you might want to see if they have something to say on the matter. (I have seen others that just said "your best work." So, like everything, it depends on the individual committees.)

[overoverover]

Also, when are you applying? If you're shooting to apply a year from now, it might be worth taking the time to revise the Quine paper a bit more.

Yeah, and with a year of serious work (including time away from the paper at various stages) a good but unfocused paper can become a great one.

[Edit_Undo]

I've got shut out last season and I think what hurt my application the most was my writing sample. It was on ethics and my areas of interest are not close to ethics at all. I have changed my writing sample for this season and it is now aligned with my areas of interest. By the end of this season, I might be able to tell you weather it matters or not, albeit, that would be a sample of 1 person.

[Infinite Zest]

Yeah, and with a year of serious work (including time away from the paper at various stages) a good but unfocused paper can become a great one.

 

I think this really helped me with my writing sample. I had to set it aside for some time and then come back to it.

[isostheneia]

I think this really helped me with my writing sample. I had to set it aside for some time and then come back to it.

 

Agreed. There are parts of my paper where, upon coming back to them after a month or two away from the paper, I wondered why I had expressed my ideas as I did. I think my focus while writing the paper was rather different from while I was revising and editing it. At the former stage, I was mainly concerned with working out the ideas, while in the latter stage I was focused instead on the intelligibility of my writing. I think it's quite important to undergo both stages in order to have a writing sample that's both conceptually sound and clear/easy to understand.

 

I also want to add that, regarding the issue of the sample aligning with one's interests, it's certainly beneficial but not necessary. Adcoms see plenty of papers that aren't on an applicant's AOI, so I don't think they'll be confused why one would submit such a sample. The advice to submit one's best paper is widespread, and adcoms are aware of this. But having one's sample align with one's AOI is beneficial because it allows adcoms to assess one's ability to work on these AOI.

 

So even if a non-AOI-related paper is really strong, there's still some risk for the adcom - "What if this applicant can write a great (e.g.) historical paper, but isn't in fact very good in what s/he wants to study?" If the paper is both strong and on the applicant's AOI, this element of risk is absent.

 

Of course, this being said, a strong non-AOI-related paper is preferable to a merely decent AOI-related paper. Assessing the relative strengths of one's own papers is difficult, so asking one's professors what they think of two potential samples is advisable.

[Hopephily]

It would be wise to talk to your letter writers about which paper represents your strongest work. Hopefully they are very familiar with both your papers and so would have a more informed opinion than any of us. As long as you're not writing on a topic that is too obscure, I wouldn't worry about matching your sample to your stated primary interest. 

Edited January 5, 2015 by Hopephily

[Infinite Zest]

Agreed. There are parts of my paper where, upon coming back to them after a month or two away from the paper, I wondered why I had expressed my ideas as I did. I think my focus while writing the paper was rather different from while I was revising and editing it. At the former stage, I was mainly concerned with working out the ideas, while in the latter stage I was focused instead on the intelligibility of my writing. I think it's quite important to undergo both stages in order to have a writing sample that's both conceptually sound and clear/easy to understand.

 

 

I think a big part of my writing process involves gaining a deep understanding of what I'm actually writing about. As surprising as it sounds, I don't think I fully understand the topic until I finish writing at least a first draft.

[isostheneia]

I think a big part of my writing process involves gaining a deep understanding of what I'm actually writing about. As surprising as it sounds, I don't think I fully understand the topic until I finish writing at least a first draft.

 

Absolutely. If I'm writing a paper in a day, once I finish, I almost always need to go back and edit the introduction or first few pages to reflect what I ended up saying. And this goes even more so for papers like writing samples - the version I'm turning in to grad programs might as well be a different paper entirely from my first few drafts over a year ago.

 

I've also had the experience with shorter papers of going through my argument, coming to an objection, being totally unable to respond to it, changing my opinion on the issue, and rewriting the paper entirely in favor of the opposite position.

[Infinite Zest]

Absolutely. If I'm writing a paper in a day, once I finish, I almost always need to go back and edit the introduction or first few pages to reflect what I ended up saying. And this goes even more so for papers like writing samples - the version I'm turning in to grad programs might as well be a different paper entirely from my first few drafts over a year ago.

 

I've also had the experience with shorter papers of going through my argument, coming to an objection, being totally unable to respond to it, changing my opinion on the issue, and rewriting the paper entirely in favor of the opposite position.

 

I was thinking about the value of writing, only to later delete, a fairly expansive literature review before beginning to write any of my "real" papers. This way, nobody, other than myself, would see all of my muddled, early thoughts. I'm sure this would be a time consuming process, but I also think it would be incredibly useful.

[Nastasya_Filippovna]

Agreed. There are parts of my paper where, upon coming back to them after a month or two away from the paper, I wondered why I had expressed my ideas as I did. I think my focus while writing the paper was rather different from while I was revising and editing it. At the former stage, I was mainly concerned with working out the ideas, while in the latter stage I was focused instead on the intelligibility of my writing. I think it's quite important to undergo both stages in order to have a writing sample that's both conceptually sound and clear/easy to understand.

 

I also want to add that, regarding the issue of the sample aligning with one's interests, it's certainly beneficial but not necessary. Adcoms see plenty of papers that aren't on an applicant's AOI, so I don't think they'll be confused why one would submit such a sample. The advice to submit one's best paper is widespread, and adcoms are aware of this. But having one's sample align with one's AOI is beneficial because it allows adcoms to assess one's ability to work on these AOI.

 

So even if a non-AOI-related paper is really strong, there's still some risk for the adcom - "What if this applicant can write a great (e.g.) historical paper, but isn't in fact very good in what s/he wants to study?" If the paper is both strong and on the applicant's AOI, this element of risk is absent.

 

Of course, this being said, a strong non-AOI-related paper is preferable to a merely decent AOI-related paper. Assessing the relative strengths of one's own papers is difficult, so asking one's professors what they think of two potential samples is advisable.

So true! It's hard for me to do this because I get so hyper-focused on my work and I feel guilty leaving it, but I feel it's imperative, especially with longer and more significant pieces of work. You just start to glaze over the piece and inevitably lose the critical eye if you are reviewing it ad infinium without intervals away. I realized that I was reading it with all the written arguments unquestioned, unconsciously making assumptions that the arguments were already well articulated- the opposite of my intentions! I'd come back to it in a few weeks and be able to tear into it, my first thoughts being, "HOW did I miss that!" I sent the same sample to all schools- my sample is on Nietzsche and some of the schools are definitely more analytic-oriented. I have interests in both analytic and continental, so I figure they will do with it what they will, but this piece was my baby and by far my best work. I simply explained that in my SOP.

Edited January 6, 2015 by Nastasya_Filippovna

[Nastasya_Filippovna]

Absolutely. If I'm writing a paper in a day, once I finish, I almost always need to go back and edit the introduction or first few pages to reflect what I ended up saying. And this goes even more so for papers like writing samples - the version I'm turning in to grad programs might as well be a different paper entirely from my first few drafts over a year ago.

 

I've also had the experience with shorter papers of going through my argument, coming to an objection, being totally unable to respond to it, changing my opinion on the issue, and rewriting the paper entirely in favor of the opposite position.

Yes! I love watching this process unfold!