Specialization

[Dr. Old Bill]

So in the process of deconstructing what went wrong for me this application season, I suspect it might have had a lot to do with my choice of specialization. I focused on "transhistorical prosody," with a particular interest in the evolution of sonnet form, grounded in the early modern era. The problem, I think, is that because it was only tenuously rooted in the early modern era, it may have turned off a lot of the "pure" early modernist POIs I mentioned in my SOPs. Likewise, some of the prosodists may have been turned off by my interest in the early modern era... Ultimately, while I can't say for certain, I have a feeling that for some programs at least, my specialization was too broad. My WS was an analysis of intentionality in perceived errors in three of Shakespeare's sonnets...so it seemed to work well with what I was selling in my SOP, but it's hard to say...

 

Anyhow, I suppose my question for the rest of you recent acceptances is fairly basic, but...what brought you to your specialization, and how did you arrive there? Also, how did you frame that interest in your SOPs?

 

I am, by nature, more of a generalist. I legitimately enjoy a wide range of literature from diverse time periods. A specialization in prosody was basically because it's something I can specialize in, simply because I already have a lot of specialized knowledge (which I was able to demonstrate in my SOPs by being a widely published formal poet). Nevertheless, I certainly feel comfortable with a few other periods and subgenres...it's just a case of finding out what is appealing to a wide range of programs and certain POIs etc. And as more than one professor has told me, it doesn't really matter what you state as your interest to get into your program, so long as it gets you in to the program... I wouldn't go that far, of course. My integrity wouldn't let me. But the point is well-taken -- a lot of the process is about looking as appealing as possible, regardless of what your ultimate focus of study happens to be.

 

In any event, I'll cut this off here, but I'm legitimately curious about the question of specialization and how it is arrived at...

 

 

[allplaideverything]

I think you may be right, to some extent, that more narrow or specific proposed specializations have more success in application season. While I didn't name a specific text or set of texts I want to work on, my SOP was pretty specific about my interest in radicalism and gender non-normativity in 19th Century American lit & culture.

 

I don't really know much about early modern & prosody, but it seems like perhaps you applied in a pretty competitive field--one where there are very few spots, mostly at elite institutions?

 

I'm genuinely interested in my proposed specialization, but I indeed chose it at least in part because it's less competitive than, say, contemporary , which I'm most prepared for as a poet / creative writer. I feel that having a relatively specific focus, in a less competitive historical period, with a hot theoretical / methodological approach, helped me so much this season.

[__________________________]

I think it depends. My interests are pretty broad, comparative, and theoretical even if I'm (currently) "grounded in the high/late medieval periods." I don't think it's a coincidence that the two programs I'm considering right now are pretty interdisciplinary, comparative, and often theoretical in their orientations and that the places I got rejected from are generally more conservative and have a higher emphasis (it seems) on specialization.

I dunno. Sure we have B.A.s, but I think it's kind of silly to be expected to be siloed off into our little insular academic boxes before we even start graduate school. I have no fucking clue what my diss will be on at this point and at the school I'm 90% sure I'm going to be attending that isn't going to be an issue. Some people (and programs) already know exactly what they want, but I definitely think there are some programs that would prefer students who seem open to change and experimentation.

ETA: That being said, allplaid makes a good point though about small fields, which can vary from school to school. Resources for medieval work was important in my search, but the fact that the school I'm most likely going to be attending is more known for American lit and theory helped me a lot, I suspect: though there are wonderful medievalists across the university, the English department is NOT one that is flooded with medievalist applicants, I suspect, because there aren't many medievalist theory-heads.

Edited March 8, 2015 by mollifiedmolloy

[NowMoreSerious]

 

 

 

I am, by nature, more of a generalist. I legitimately enjoy a wide range of literature from diverse time periods. A specialization in prosody was basically because it's something I can specialize in, simply because I already have a lot of specialized knowledge (which I was able to demonstrate in my SOPs by being a widely published formal poet). 

 

Can you expand a bit on this?  This part sticks out to me.  How did you demonstrate it by being a widely published formal poet?   

[CarolineNC]

I think you need to make your interests pretty clear. You can do that by flat out saying them, then also emphasizing them during a section on who you want to work with. A section on your thesis or whatever your writing sample is, is also a way to articulate your research interests.

 

Here is the blurb I included in my letter of intent. I changed it slightly for each school to reflect that school's strengths.  

 

"I hope to focus on methods and movements relevant to my main interests: nineteenth- and early- twentieth-century American literature and culture. Within this period, I focus mainly on American regionalist, sentimental, and domestic literatures. My other scholarly interests lie in gender and sexuality studies, critical race theory, and space and place studies. I concentrate specifically on the historical construction of urban spaces, particularly those that were hubs of activity in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, including but not limited to San Francisco, New York City, Philadelphia and my own hometown, Charleston, South Carolina. Here, I focus both on the cultural meanings ascribed to these places and the power these places exert in producing gendered and racialized subjects."

 

            

[greenmt]

My area of specialized interest (a kind of mashup of 19th C sentimentalism / prosody / music) arose organically while I was getting a MA degree a few years ago, but has roots in work I did as an undergrad (writing) major, and was refined through discussions with my former advisor and faculty in my MA program, and the difficult work of writing a brief statement of purpose that adequately summarized my thinking.  I also applied (to four programs, as this year) and did not get in last year, and that experience / process made me look more deeply into my motivations and interests.  I visited one of my waitlist schools last year - it was UMD - to meet faculty, and to attend a conference they were hosting on the subject of literature and music; and those combined experiences enriched and expanded my thinking a great deal.  Since you're going to be in grad school, you'll be doing all these kinds of things (talking with faculty, attending conferences, digging more deeply into the subjects you're interested in), and I bet your subject interests will distill naturally.  

[Dr. Old Bill]

 

 

 

Can you expand a bit on this?  This part sticks out to me.  How did you demonstrate it by being a widely published formal poet?   

 

Sure. My SOP starts by discussing how an interest in writing poetry in traditional forms (and getting good enough to garner a lot of publication etc.) led to an interest in studying prosody. It then goes into specific study interests that were fostered in undergrad, before getting to the meat and potatoes of my focus:

 

"As a sonneteer myself, this has sparked an intense desire to study the form in greater detail. In this regard, my ideal course of graduate study would involve a close examination of sonnet origins, beginning with Giacomo da Lentini, who is often credited with “inventing” the sonnet, and proceeding through Petrarch and other Italian lyric poets before arriving at Wyatt’s anglicization of the form. To do this, I will start by learning Italian prior to matriculation, which should not be difficult given my current reading knowledge of Spanish. The transition of the sonnet from Italian to English will warrant significant study, particularly in determining the difficulties associated with going from a “rhyme-rich” language into one that is comparatively “rhyme-poor.” This element, more than any other, prompted the change in form from the classic Italian/Petrarchan sonnet into the far more forgiving English/Shakespearean construct and its increased number of rhyme pairings. From there, I am most interested in tracing the evolution of sonnet form, as well as its associated themes and tropes, through to present day, and I anticipate fielding a wide range of opinions and perspectives on precisely how that evolution progressed. My hope is to gather enough insights on this subject to develop a unifying theory that can be used to not only explain the endurance of the form, but also project where it might be heading in the future."

 

In retrospect, perhaps I shouldn't have opened my SOP by talking about my own poetic background, regardless of its legitimacy. I did get a lot of feedback from current and former grad students on my SOP (as well as my WS), and it seemed to pass muster for everyone, but now that I've gone through the cycle, I have to give some harder thought to what I should improve. This is obviously rather premature, given that I'll be spending the next two years going through an M.A. program, meaning that it will be a year and a half before I need to revisit this...but it can't hurt (much) to start thinking about it now, while it's still fresh (and a little painful).

[NowMoreSerious]

Sure. My SOP starts by discussing how an interest in writing poetry in traditional forms (and getting good enough to garner a lot of publication etc.) led to an interest in studying prosody. It then goes into specific study interests that were fostered in undergrad, before getting to the meat and potatoes of my focus:

 

"As a sonneteer myself, this has sparked an intense desire to study the form in greater detail. In this regard, my ideal course of graduate study would involve a close examination of sonnet origins, beginning with Giacomo da Lentini, who is often credited with “inventing” the sonnet, and proceeding through Petrarch and other Italian lyric poets before arriving at Wyatt’s anglicization of the form. To do this, I will start by learning Italian prior to matriculation, which should not be difficult given my current reading knowledge of Spanish. The transition of the sonnet from Italian to English will warrant significant study, particularly in determining the difficulties associated with going from a “rhyme-rich” language into one that is comparatively “rhyme-poor.” This element, more than any other, prompted the change in form from the classic Italian/Petrarchan sonnet into the far more forgiving English/Shakespearean construct and its increased number of rhyme pairings. From there, I am most interested in tracing the evolution of sonnet form, as well as its associated themes and tropes, through to present day, and I anticipate fielding a wide range of opinions and perspectives on precisely how that evolution progressed. My hope is to gather enough insights on this subject to develop a unifying theory that can be used to not only explain the endurance of the form, but also project where it might be heading in the future."

 

In retrospect, perhaps I shouldn't have opened my SOP by talking about my own poetic background, regardless of its legitimacy. I did get a lot of feedback from current and former grad students on my SOP (as well as my WS), and it seemed to pass muster for everyone, but now that I've gone through the cycle, I have to give some harder thought to what I should improve. This is obviously rather premature, given that I'll be spending the next two years going through an M.A. program, meaning that it will be a year and a half before I need to revisit this...but it can't hurt (much) to start thinking about it now, while it's still fresh (and a little painful).

 

 I will PM you

[Appppplication]

Specialization definitely helped me, not only for my own writing now but also for the future of my teaching and research. Although I had a few interests, they all overlapped and supported my primary theoretical approach.

 

Your SOP looks ambitious and interesting, but it could be a lifetime's work, and would that work be mostly historical or literary or linguistic? Here's an example of how that interest could be narrowed down:

 

For your area, for example (and by no means am I an expert on sonnets OR statements of purpose), you could be interested in the evolution of the sonnet form, which requires a broad knowledge of the history of sonnets, but you would then focus specifically on Wyatt's anglicization of the form. This would require an interest in and knowledge of cultural studies of 16thC Britain and early Renaissance, but also a knowledge of say late 15th and early16th C poetry in general so as to understand how Wyatt's adaptation of the form fit into lit and culture of the period. You could then write your dissertation on, say, romantic love in Wyatt's sonnets. Such a topic could address the need to adapt the form, thematic influences from other writers of the era, and Wyatt's place or non-place in the literary culture of his era. This could even lead you to argue that Wyatt's addressing of romantic love necessitated the adaptation of the sonnet form or whatever based on how poetry was written at the time and how he needed to break from it to relay a new conception of romance or whatever.

 

This topic itself could be a huge huge book and may still be too general.

 

I hope this doesn't come off as a critique, but IMO this type of broad interest broken down into specifics that all blatantly connect can really unify not only your writing but your teaching abilities and your future work.  

 

Hope this helps.

Edited March 8, 2015 by Appppplication

[Wonton Soup]

On the rhet/comp side, my interests lie in the intersections of rhetoric and marxism, composition and marxism, and the ways literacy instruction carries or challenges inequalities of class, gender, and race, with a special focus on class. I got here through the study of labor, of adjunct working conditions, and my own activist work. 

 

My personal statement(s) was not very specific. I was only specific when I talked about my master's thesis and previous conference presentations. I talked about my broad interests and mostly about the framework that I want to use to approach various topics in the field. 

[Dr. Old Bill]

I hope this doesn't come off as a critique, but IMO this type of broad interest broken down into specifics that all blatantly connect can really unify not only your writing but your teaching abilities and your future work.  

 

No no, not at all. This is all very helpful, trust me. I'm grateful for the insight.

[1Q84]

Obviously, I'm not the best person to be speaking about this, but I can only re-iterate what others have said about being very, very specific about one's interests--and, if not, making sure to explicitly wrangle in advance with the imagined-puzzled-looks that adcomms might have about your SOP. I reckon your supposition about turning off both prosodists and early modernists with your articulation of your interests might be correct.

 

I had to make a choice to apply as an early modernist (since that's where the bulk of my work has been) even though my more recent passion has been modern American cultural studies. When I corresponded with POIs, I always asked how they felt about these two disparate interest. The schools with the POIs that said they saw it as a strength (in an interdisciplinary way) or advised that I devote a section of my SOP to explaining the (what they said was an exciting) theoretical confluence between the two fields were, not surprisingly, the schools at which my app had the most success. The schools that seemed a little more confused or less enthused about my disparate interests rejected me probably for that reason (among others).

 

On the subject of app season self-reflection, I don't think my SOP or my way of articulating my interests was what held me back: it was a crappy WS. I wrote it in about two-three weekends during a busy stretch of a semester. If I had more time to fine-tune it and fix up obvious problem areas, I think I might have fared a bit better.

 

PS. I do want to ask you as well about your WS: you say it was based on intentionality in three of Shakespeare's sonnets. Does this WS actually demonstrate skill in transhistorical prosody? It seems rather confined to the early modern period.

[Between Fields]

So in the process of deconstructing what went wrong for me this application season, I suspect it might have had a lot to do with my choice of specialization. I focused on "transhistorical prosody," with a particular interest in the evolution of sonnet form, grounded in the early modern era. The problem, I think, is that because it was only tenuously rooted in the early modern era, it may have turned off a lot of the "pure" early modernist POIs I mentioned in my SOPs. Likewise, some of the prosodists may have been turned off by my interest in the early modern era... Ultimately, while I can't say for certain, I have a feeling that for some programs at least, my specialization was too broad. My WS was an analysis of intentionality in perceived errors in three of Shakespeare's sonnets...so it seemed to work well with what I was selling in my SOP, but it's hard to say...

 

Anyhow, I suppose my question for the rest of you recent acceptances is fairly basic, but...what brought you to your specialization, and how did you arrive there? Also, how did you frame that interest in your SOPs?

 

I am, by nature, more of a generalist. I legitimately enjoy a wide range of literature from diverse time periods. A specialization in prosody was basically because it's something I can specialize in, simply because I already have a lot of specialized knowledge (which I was able to demonstrate in my SOPs by being a widely published formal poet). Nevertheless, I certainly feel comfortable with a few other periods and subgenres...it's just a case of finding out what is appealing to a wide range of programs and certain POIs etc. And as more than one professor has told me, it doesn't really matter what you state as your interest to get into your program, so long as it gets you in to the program... I wouldn't go that far, of course. My integrity wouldn't let me. But the point is well-taken -- a lot of the process is about looking as appealing as possible, regardless of what your ultimate focus of study happens to be.

 

In any event, I'll cut this off here, but I'm legitimately curious about the question of specialization and how it is arrived at...

 

 

Sure. My SOP starts by discussing how an interest in writing poetry in traditional forms (and getting good enough to garner a lot of publication etc.) led to an interest in studying prosody. It then goes into specific study interests that were fostered in undergrad, before getting to the meat and potatoes of my focus:

 

"As a sonneteer myself, this has sparked an intense desire to study the form in greater detail. In this regard, my ideal course of graduate study would involve a close examination of sonnet origins, beginning with Giacomo da Lentini, who is often credited with “inventing” the sonnet, and proceeding through Petrarch and other Italian lyric poets before arriving at Wyatt’s anglicization of the form. To do this, I will start by learning Italian prior to matriculation, which should not be difficult given my current reading knowledge of Spanish. The transition of the sonnet from Italian to English will warrant significant study, particularly in determining the difficulties associated with going from a “rhyme-rich” language into one that is comparatively “rhyme-poor.” This element, more than any other, prompted the change in form from the classic Italian/Petrarchan sonnet into the far more forgiving English/Shakespearean construct and its increased number of rhyme pairings. From there, I am most interested in tracing the evolution of sonnet form, as well as its associated themes and tropes, through to present day, and I anticipate fielding a wide range of opinions and perspectives on precisely how that evolution progressed. My hope is to gather enough insights on this subject to develop a unifying theory that can be used to not only explain the endurance of the form, but also project where it might be heading in the future."

 

In retrospect, perhaps I shouldn't have opened my SOP by talking about my own poetic background, regardless of its legitimacy. I did get a lot of feedback from current and former grad students on my SOP (as well as my WS), and it seemed to pass muster for everyone, but now that I've gone through the cycle, I have to give some harder thought to what I should improve. This is obviously rather premature, given that I'll be spending the next two years going through an M.A. program, meaning that it will be a year and a half before I need to revisit this...but it can't hurt (much) to start thinking about it now, while it's still fresh (and a little painful).

 

(Apologies if I come across as harsh, but you asked for feedback.)

 

I agree with another poster who said that this could be a lifetime of work. Anytime you're bringing up a unifying theory of anything, it's got the sort of weight that would honestly make me nervous, if I were reading your statement of purpose. How many professors did you have look at this statement? You mention graduate students (who are good resources), but the first draft of my SOP looked something like this and the first professor I showed it to ripped it to shreds. Especially coming from a BA (my assumption, if you're going into an MA now), even with published sonnets, I think being this specific in your dissertation prospectus (which this reads like) is dangerous. I don't see in this paragraph (and you might address it other places) how you would be gaining anything from graduate school, since you've already got your trajectory locked in. That is, at least, how it reads the way it is written.

 

To restate the information you've given us: "I'm interested in early modern sonnets, especially the forms that influence them and the forms that they influenced." or "I am interested in the reception of the early modern sonnet." or "I'm interested in connecting my work writing sonnets to a critical understanding of that form and its evolution before, during, and after the early modern period." You have too much verbiage, which seems to stem from an anxiety over not having enough of a speciality at this point in your career. That's understandable, but I'm not sure not having a speciality really the problem. Avoid phrases like "transhistorical prosody," because both of those terms are very complex and would require a specific, contextualized definition that there's just not room for in a statement of purpose. That's what your writing sample is form--show them that you are doing that sort of research already. (In the same vein, mentioning that it would be pretty easy for you to learn Italian raises some flags, too... Best to avoid, for a number of reasons.)

 

Doing an MA will help you figure this out, though. That's what they're for. Then you will able to be so specific (which I think you are--as you explicitly state that you want to develop a unifying theory), because your MA work can back it up. 

 

---

 

To answer the other part of your post, though, I stumbled into my specialization by realizing that there isn't a specialization that precisely matches my academic interests. I have a bachelor's degree in classics (I like Latin and Greek poetry) and an MA in English (I like postcolonial theory), but as a PhD student I'm studying rhetoric and composition (I like seeing how words affect real people). I've put that together in a number of fun ways, but broadly the question that I'm asking as a scholar is: How does English Studies impact/incorporate/oppress/liberate voices from outside the center? And so from there, I'm looking at the rhetoric of English Studies scholarship surrounding the canon and the non-canon, especially how it relates to queer and colonial voices.

 

What I said in my SOP was something along the lines of "I'm interested in exploring the link between Classical Studies and Postcolonial Theory from the point of view as a rhetorician." I had part of my MA thesis which did that attached as the writing sample to show that I was already doing that sort of work. Honestly, though, I've never worked with either of the two people I identified as POIs, because I found connections in coursework and teaching that led me to other people anyway.

 

Is that helpful?

[NowMoreSerious]

 

 

I agree with another poster who said that this could be a lifetime of work. Anytime you're bringing up a unifying theory of anything, it's got the sort of weight that would honestly make me nervous, if I were reading your statement of purpose. How many professors did you have look at this statement? You mention graduate students (who are good resources), but the first draft of my SOP looked something like this and the first professor I showed it to ripped it to shreds. Especially coming from a BA (my assumption, if you're going into an MA now), even with published sonnets, I think being this specific in your dissertation prospectus (which this reads like) is dangerous. I don't see in this paragraph (and you might address it other places) how you would be gaining anything from graduate school, since you've already got your trajectory locked in. That is, at least, how it reads the way it is written.

 

Yes, yes, and yes.  

[dazedandbemused]

 

I agree with another poster who said that this could be a lifetime of work. Anytime you're bringing up a unifying theory of anything, it's got the sort of weight that would honestly make me nervous, if I were reading your statement of purpose. How many professors did you have look at this statement? You mention graduate students (who are good resources), but the first draft of my SOP looked something like this and the first professor I showed it to ripped it to shreds. Especially coming from a BA (my assumption, if you're going into an MA now), even with published sonnets, I think being this specific in your dissertation prospectus (which this reads like) is dangerous. I don't see in this paragraph (and you might address it other places) how you would be gaining anything from graduate school, since you've already got your trajectory locked in. That is, at least, how it reads the way it is written.

 

Yes, this was my immediate impression of what you've written as well. My first draft of my SOP was also ripped to shreds by a professor because it was both too specific and too broad. You've proclaimed a plan of attack that doesn't really include room for growth in a graduate program, but it also sounds like such a large project that it's actually kind of a detriment to your self-presentation as an academic in that it's almost grandiose in its impenetrability.

 

I guess I'll answer your original question as well and talk about my specialization, which took me a long time to formulate and which is constantly in flux, even two years in. I knew that I wanted to be as much of a generalist as possible, and I knew I wanted to work with gender and race. The first time I applied to grad school, I positioned myself as a Victorianist interested in Queer theory, but a year later I had decided on the 18th century because I thought the women novelists in that period offered better diversity, even though they were more obscure. Then I realized that in order to talk about race, I should be focused on the transatlantic world, which suited me perfectly because I didn't feel comfortable thinking in nationalist terms. Honestly, that's as far as I had gotten in terms of formulating a point of view when I applied, but I made certain to point out some interesting future avenues to pursue to show that I was thinking inside the larger field as it existed at the time, even if I hadn't yet articulated the countours of my field (which is 18th century transatlantic women writers with a focus on the early novel).

 

Nobody expects you to know exactly what your dissertation will say, but they do expect you to show that you know what kind of research questions English grad students should be asking and how you see their program helping you to answer those questions. At the beginning of the fall semester, I expressed my anxiety about being a year in and not really having a clear path yet, and all of my advisor/mentor figures told me to just keep reading and keep taking classes and something would come up. I totally didn't believe them, but then I had a breakthrough last week that I never could have had without the last three semesters of work behind me. The whole point of that anecdote is just to say that while it's important to present a well-rounded and self-assured persona when discussing your research, I think it's also important to show that you're still open to being shaped.

[allplaideverything]

Nobody expects you to know exactly what your dissertation will say, but they do expect you to show that you know what kind of research questions English grad students should be asking and how you see their program helping you to answer those questions.

 

I think that's a great way of looking at the SOP--being able to formulate appropriate research questions.

 

The relevant portion of my SOP, after having discussed my subject position and the work I've done previously, in case it's helpful or interesting: "Of particular interest to me are writers, events, and texts which might prefigure queer theory’s destabilization of gender and sexual norms. [...] The 19^th Century produced a variety of texts which demonstrate the lived realities of queer, transgender, and gender nonconforming people before those categories had been discursively produced. Queer and trans* people in the 19^th Century were engaged in the process of constructing their gender identities and narratives at the same time the United States was constructing its own cultural autobiography. By examining the Queer 19^th Century as a doctoral student, using an intersectional and interdisciplinary methodology, I hope to trouble the junctions between a budding imperialism, the juggernaut of white supremacist capitalism, and the queer lives, bodies, and texts at the margins which render themselves culturally unintelligible in their radical resistance to traditional gender norms."

[bigrelief]

WyattsTorch--  I agree with another poster that mentioning your interest in developing a "unifying theory" may have been scary to adcomms, but for a different reason.  I don't think, especially coming out of a B.A., that a little academic hubris is necessarily a turn-off.  My SOP was big and bold, comparing Moby-Dick to Pound's Cantos (among other more reasonable things).  I wasn't proposing a project; I was proposing a way of thinking about literature that was pretty organic to me.  I think the adcomms recognized and liked that, while knowing full well that my eventual dissertation project would be much more narrow and grounded.  

 

The problem, at least with the passage from your SOP that you've provided, is that you say that your goal is to develop a "unified theory" of the sonnet but you don't give an indication of what you think, even in your wildest non-theoretically-grounded dreams, what that theory might look like (except that it might have to do with rhyme-rich and rhyme-poor languages).  If you said "I'm interested in tracing the history of the sonnet from its beginnings to its current forms, and I suspect that these transformations can be attributed to X" that would be enormous and unsupportable and never a possible project, but it would give the adcomms insight into your ways of thinking rather than simply your methodologies and periodization.  And that instinct that you have, your Theory, could then be applied to a much smaller and more manageable project that would probably be pretty unique.

 

I don't want to contradict your instinct that you need to narrow your time period and perhaps broaden your methodology--I think these strategies would more reliably produce a strong SOP.  But I just wanted to offer support for the Big Idea SOP, since it's what I did and it worked out well for me.  I suppose it comes down to this:  if you have a Theory that's yours, tell them!  And if you don't, don't have "come up with a unifying theory" as your goal for graduate study, have a goal like "explore connections between X & Y."  I think both approaches can work.

[jhefflol]

Yes, this was my immediate impression of what you've written as well. My first draft of my SOP was also ripped to shreds by a professor because it was both too specific and too broad. You've proclaimed a plan of attack that doesn't really include room for growth in a graduate program, but it also sounds like such a large project that it's actually kind of a detriment to your self-presentation as an academic in that it's almost grandiose in its impenetrability.

 

I guess I'll answer your original question as well and talk about my specialization, which took me a long time to formulate and which is constantly in flux, even two years in. I knew that I wanted to be as much of a generalist as possible, and I knew I wanted to work with gender and race. The first time I applied to grad school, I positioned myself as a Victorianist interested in Queer theory, but a year later I had decided on the 18th century because I thought the women novelists in that period offered better diversity, even though they were more obscure. Then I realized that in order to talk about race, I should be focused on the transatlantic world, which suited me perfectly because I didn't feel comfortable thinking in nationalist terms. Honestly, that's as far as I had gotten in terms of formulating a point of view when I applied, but I made certain to point out some interesting future avenues to pursue to show that I was thinking inside the larger field as it existed at the time, even if I hadn't yet articulated the countours of my field (which is 18th century transatlantic women writers with a focus on the early novel).

 

Nobody expects you to know exactly what your dissertation will say, but they do expect you to show that you know what kind of research questions English grad students should be asking and how you see their program helping you to answer those questions. At the beginning of the fall semester, I expressed my anxiety about being a year in and not really having a clear path yet, and all of my advisor/mentor figures told me to just keep reading and keep taking classes and something would come up. I totally didn't believe them, but then I had a breakthrough last week that I never could have had without the last three semesters of work behind me. The whole point of that anecdote is just to say that while it's important to present a well-rounded and self-assured persona when discussing your research, I think it's also important to show that you're still open to being shaped.

 

I just want to chime in to say that this is super helpful to me specifically. I'm also interested in transatlantic representations of gender in the early American/18th century. In retrospect, I feel I was unintentionally given bad advice by multiple sources who didn't think my specialization was 1) a specialization at all and 2) wouldn't fit in to any program. I was advised to choose one author and establish one argument about that author for my SOP. I chose to focus on how gender is formulated rhetorically in Shakespeare because that's what most of my graduate-level papers have been about. Unfortunately, gender studies of Shakespeare is not as interesting or current as transatlantic studies, and I think that probably worked against me. 

 

ETA: I'm not trying to push any weakness of my application on to those who helped me, as I'm grateful for the help I did receive, but I'm just trying to think of ways to improve my application for next season. I think that being true to what I actually want to study is a good, obvious start.

Edited March 9, 2015 by jhefflol

[chateaulafitte]

I apologize in advance if anything I write reads harsh, but hopefully some of it will be helpful.

 

1- General question: Is there a reason why you use "transhistorical prosody" rather than "historical prosody"?

 

2- About your SOP:

 

"As a sonneteer myself, this has sparked an intense desire to study the form in greater detail. In this regard, my ideal course of graduate study would involve a close examination of sonnet origins, beginning with Giacomo da Lentini, who is often credited with “inventing” the sonnet, and proceeding through Petrarch and other Italian lyric poets before arriving at Wyatt’s anglicization of the form. To do this, I will start by learning Italian prior to matriculation, which should not be difficult given my current reading knowledge of Spanish. The transition of the sonnet from Italian to English will warrant significant study, particularly in determining the difficulties associated with going from a “rhyme-rich” language into one that is comparatively “rhyme-poor.” This element, more than any other, prompted the change in form from the classic Italian/Petrarchan sonnet into the far more forgiving English/Shakespearean construct and its increased number of rhyme pairings. From there, I am most interested in tracing the evolution of sonnet form, as well as its associated themes and tropes, through to present day, and I anticipate fielding a wide range of opinions and perspectives on precisely how that evolution progressed. My hope is to gather enough insights on this subject to develop a unifying theory that can be used to not only explain the endurance of the form, but also project where it might be heading in the future."

 

"To do this, I will start by learning Italian prior to matriculation, which should not be difficult given my current reading knowledge of Spanish." This is a detail, but I'd get rid of this; it could rub people the wrong way.

 

3- Now on to what I think is the main problem: Bold claims and projects are great. The problem is that you also need to deliver, to show that there's something profoundly original about your project. What you plan to do - to produce a GUT of the sonnet - sounds great on paper. But in the lines leading to that project you write about ground that's  been trodden again and again. Origins of the sonnet, rhyme rich / poor languages, ok, that's all true, but what's new there? Not much. Admission (and later, search) committees also look for sexiness, originality, etc. You need to find an angle for your project. 

 

In short:

 

 

if you have a Theory that's yours, tell them!  And if you don't, don't have "come up with a unifying theory" as your goal for graduate study, have a goal like "explore connections between X & Y."  I think both approaches can work.

 

That.

[Dr. Old Bill]

Thanks folks. This has all (literally) been helpful. Nothing reads as harsh, I promise!

 

My only wish -- and it is a fervent one -- is that I'd known this back in August or September. It's funny, because I read books on SOPs, had several people look at it,* and instinctively felt it was strong. In fact, I worried (and one of my LOR writers also worried) that it was too specific. So as with most aspects of this cycle, it has just been an expensive, time-consuming, heart-wrenching lesson...but it is a lesson. Hopefully I'll be able to put the experience to good use in my next application cycle.

 

 

 

 

 

*And like Jhefflol says, that's certainly not a knock on anyone who did take the time to look it over and comment at length!

[allplaideverything]

Thanks folks. This has all (literally) been helpful. Nothing reads as harsh, I promise!

 

My only wish -- and it is a fervent one -- is that I'd known this back in August or September. It's funny, because I read books on SOPs, had several people look at it,* and instinctively felt it was strong. In fact, I worried (and one of my LOR writers also worried) that it was too specific. So as with most aspects of this cycle, it has just been an expensive, time-consuming, heart-wrenching lesson...but it is a lesson. Hopefully I'll be able to put the experience to good use in my next application cycle.

 

 

 

 

 

*And like Jhefflol says, that's certainly not a knock on anyone who did take the time to look it over and comment at length!

 

I'm sorry you've had a rough application season. FWIW, you've been incredibly helpful and warm on GC through the entire process. You're clearly much more prepared for graduate work than I was when I was coming out of undergrad, but I will say that my M.A. (and my MFA) helped me immensely to figure a lot of this stuff out. Hopefully you love UMD and come out the better for it.

[CarolineNC]

I'm sorry you've had a rough application season. FWIW, you've been incredibly helpful and warm on GC through the entire process. You're clearly much more prepared for graduate work than I was when I was coming out of undergrad, but I will say that my M.A. (and my MFA) helped me immensely to figure a lot of this stuff out. Hopefully you love UMD and come out the better for it.

Ditto this. I cannot imagine going to into a PhD without my MA. I'm sure some people are ready, but I'm going to go ahead and say I think most people aren't. Sorry to fall back on a cliche, but I think this might be a blessing in disguise. 

[empress-marmot]

I missed this due to being on a library-book-ordering marathon last night. 

 

Thank you so much for discussing this, everyone! SOPs and Writing Samples are such closely-guarded possessions that for all the advice out there, it is hard to find actual examples. I understand. The Internet is a scary place, after all. Plus, since I know now how absolutely inadequate my generalist SOP was, I couldn't bear to expose it (and myself) to ridicule. 

 

The advice here is specific and harsh-in-a-good-way. I wish the professors who read my SOP would have asked, "Marmot, do you know anything about Rhetoric and Composition other than a couple of outdated buzzwords?" And I would have whimpered, "no." Then I would have revised. 

 

Thank you again for discussing this topic, and thank you to Wyatt's Torch for posting paragraphs from your SOP--it sounds really interesting! The forum is right; professors probably want to mold students, not take on a student who already knows exactly what they're going to study.

If anyone would like to read what not to write, I would be happy to provide an outline. It might be too soon to revisit the actual document. 

[Mattie Roh]

I'll add my thanks to this. The more I read everyone's comments and think about my own SOP, the more I think I may have made similar mistakes in my effort to seem like I have a polished plan in place for my study. It sometimes feels like I got better results (from professors who read my SOP and the like) the first application cycle when I wasn't so sure of what I wanted to do. It seems that as my focus crystallized my verbage became a tad grandiose.

Edited March 10, 2015 by Mattie Roh