10 do-s & don'ts for the statement of purpose

[shai]

I thought this could be a good place for those who are already accepted to PhD programs to add their most important tips for the SoP. What do you think ?

[Joel418]

I'd be happy to get the ball rolling.

Do: relate the parts of your background that have prepared you for (or inclined you to) graduate work

Don't: tell stories from your life that you find fascinating, but which do not relate to your aptitude or potential in your intended studies

Exception: stories that show your ability to overcome disadvantage or adversity

Do: relate your accomplishments in your field

Don't: talk about your extra-curriculars and/or volunteer work that do not relate your field

Do: mention the professors with whom you have communicated and how their work relates to your interests

Don't: mention students with whom you have communicated by name; if that student is not doing well in the program, who knows how the committee will react to your mention of the student.

Do: write, then rewrite, then proofread, then proofread it again, then give it to someone else to proofread (ideally a professor who has been a part of a grad app selection committee), then let it sit for a few days, read it aloud to yourself, then proof it again.

Don't: wait to begin writing it until the due date is two weeks away, proofread it only two or three times, and/or keep it to yourself!

Best of luck everyone

[jasper.milvain]

Do: Prove that you know what scholarly research in your area looks like, and prove your ability to complete similar work.

Don't: Try to substitute generic excitement for a broad area of interest for a somewhat focused research plan.

Do: Use active, assured language. "My research will do X."

Don't: Hedge your goals in qualifiers. "At the moment, I feel that I may be able to partially do X."

And the top ten ways to cut your SOP down to size without sacrificing content:

1. Eliminate as many modifiers as possible, especially those that are redundant to a specialized audience (ie: modernist author James Joyce).

2. Look for long verb phrases and replace them with simple, direct language.

3. Don't waste time talking about anything that goes without saying. You are passionate about the material? You want to be a part of academia? Join the club.

4. Don't waste time mentioning anything that is already covered in your CV, letters of reference, or any other part of the app package.

5. Be confident enough in your grasp of the field to make claims about the direction of research generally without feeling the need to back them up meticulously. This isn't a research paper.

6. Write as though you are already a researcher. After all, you are (albeit a junior one). This will make you sound confident AND cut down your word count. Compare "At the end of my course work, I hope to be able to better articulate the connections between postcolonial theory and Jamaican literature, and move towards a potential dissertation dealing with one or more aspects of these connections" with "I intend to continue my work on Jamaican literature using postcolonial theory."

7. Show, don't tell. This is an old piece of writing advice, but an excellent one. Instead of telling them that you're an ideal candidate ("I am an ideal candidate because of my experience, my passion for research, and my dedication to the field"), SHOW them those characteristics through your writing. Include a few sentences about your experience, and let your passion and dedication shine through the whole statement. Ad coms are made up of smart people. No need to connect the dots for them.

8. Get right to the point. Remember that your audience is a group of highly trained people who have been reading dozens and dozens of these damn things in their 'free' time, who are likely cranky and tired. Make your writing as crisp and tight as possible to keep their attention. Try having a friend read your statement on a noisy bus with a five minute time limit after a long day. Does it still make sense?

9. Get editing help from the most ruthless source possible. Take all suggestions that involve cutting content, and only the best suggestions about what to expand.

10. Give yourself several weeks of time to revise the statement in order to get emotional distance from your writing. What seemed utterly central and impossible to cut the day you wrote it may reveal itself as somewhat flabby prose a week or so later. Give yourself breaks from the editing process. They will clear your eyes.

[rainy_day]

This is all such excellent advice! Thank you, everyone!

[JackieW]

All right, so I have a question:

I completely understand that we are not supposed to say we want to enter the field of academia. So, what SHOULD we say when they ask us what we want to do after graduating? Mention what we want to do our research on? I am completely lost on this part!!!

[fuzzylogician]

I completely understand that we are not supposed to say we want to enter the field of academia. So, what SHOULD we say when they ask us what we want to do after graduating?

I did mention wanting to continue on in academia in an educational as well as research position and it went by just fine. I've never heard the advice not to mention this, especially not in fields where you could also get a job in industry. People did tell me not to write that I "would be honored to attend your glorious institution", but I think that mentioning academia as a long-term goal is perfectly acceptable, even if sort of obvious in some cases.

I can't imagine anyone would know before starting grad school what they will want to work on *after* graduating. Even if you think you do, it's probably better for your statement to reflect a readiness to change or refine your interests.

[Joel418]

All right, so I have a question:

I completely understand that we are not supposed to say we want to enter the field of academia. So, what SHOULD we say when they ask us what we want to do after graduating? Mention what we want to do our research on? I am completely lost on this part!!!

I think this suggestion is trying to tell the writer that he or she should give a clear picture of how they plan to apply the educational training in the professional arena. Would you prefer to remain in academe so that you may spend your career writing and teaching; would you wish to become an curriculum administrator in the secondary school system; do you plan to start a community foundation for the promotion of literary literacy? etc. etc...

I don't think committees object to your saying that you wish to work in academe, but they may be concerned with an applicant who doesn't seem to understand what a career in any particular arena entails.

Good luck!

[jasper.milvain]

All right, so I have a question:

I completely understand that we are not supposed to say we want to enter the field of academia. So, what SHOULD we say when they ask us what we want to do after graduating? Mention what we want to do our research on? I am completely lost on this part!!!

Ah! I may have accidentally given field-specific advice without realizing it. I'm in English. There's only one thing it directly qualifies you for: academia. So saying "I really want to do this PhD so that I can be an English professor" is like saying "I really want to take your xerox maitenance course so that I can maintain xerox machines". For me, it's a question of efficient use of space and showing, not telling. Why would I spend a thousand words outlining my specific program of Victorian lit research and then go and be redundant by making the shocking claim that I'm doing it because I want a research position in Victorian lit?

If you get specifically asked what you want to do, then of course you should mention your academic or industry plans. I have just never seen that question asked directly.

[JackieW]

Ah! I may have accidentally given field-specific advice without realizing it. I'm in English. There's only one thing it directly qualifies you for: academia. So saying "I really want to do this PhD so that I can be an English professor" is like saying "I really want to take your xerox maitenance course so that I can maintain xerox machines". For me, it's a question of efficient use of space and showing, not telling. Why would I spend a thousand words outlining my specific program of Victorian lit research and then go and be redundant by making the shocking claim that I'm doing it because I want a research position in Victorian lit?

If you get specifically asked what you want to do, then of course you should mention your academic or industry plans. I have just never seen that question asked directly.

Oh, your field-specific advice was absolutely fine: I'm applying to English phD programs with, coincidentally enough, a focus on Victorian Literature. The question in most of the SoP guidelines reads something like "What are your career goals?"--- of course my career goals are to enter academia, I want a phD in English! I think I might be over-thinking this a little...

[rainy_day]

The question in most of the SoP guidelines reads something like "What are your career goals?"-

I would think of this more as research goals--because those are certainly career goals! And those SoP quesitons are usually the same for every department, I think, so they might not all make sense for our discipline. (I'm English too, though on the Theory/Culture Studies end of the spectrum.)

Good luck!

[rising_star]

Ah! I may have accidentally given field-specific advice without realizing it. I'm in English. There's only one thing it directly qualifies you for: academia. So saying "I really want to do this PhD so that I can be an English professor" is like saying "I really want to take your xerox maitenance course so that I can maintain xerox machines". For me, it's a question of efficient use of space and showing, not telling. Why would I spend a thousand words outlining my specific program of Victorian lit research and then go and be redundant by making the shocking claim that I'm doing it because I want a research position in Victorian lit?

Actually, I know of many people with English PhDs that are working outside of the academy. Given the discrepancy between the number of jobs available for English PhDs and the number of graduates each year, it may be useful to show that you know how your academic research can be applied outside of the academy. Then again, this kind of depends on the field and may be more appropriate in mine than it would be in English.

To answer your question JackieW, I didn't just talk about wanting to be a professor but talked about how I would use my current and future research in the classroom, what size/type of institution I'd like to work, and my kind of agenda within the discipline.

[jasper.milvain]

Actually, I know of many people with English PhDs that are working outside of the academy. Given the discrepancy between the number of jobs available for English PhDs and the number of graduates each year, it may be useful to show that you know how your academic research can be applied outside of the academy. Then again, this kind of depends on the field and may be more appropriate in mine than it would be in English.

Yes, you're right. But the only job that it directly qualifies you for is being an academic (CC teaching included in that category). A lot of people do other things, but that's not the purpose of the degree. It's research training. Given that the people on the adcom are almost certainly heavily involved in research, I don't think that saying you want a PhD in English for any other reason than becoming a research academic would impress them or help your app. Of course everyone has and should have plans B, C, and D, and be open to other working options. Again, though, I wouldn't waste space on the SOP hemming and hawing about various possibilities.

My SOP instructions did not ask specific questions about career goals, though. (Here's where I mention the fact that I'm a Canadian studying in Canada for the kazillionth time.) It's probably best to check with someone who deals with that style of SOP.

[kfed2020]

Yes, you're right. But the only job that it directly qualifies you for is being an academic (CC teaching included in that category). A lot of people do other things, but that's not the purpose of the degree. It's research training. Given that the people on the adcom are almost certainly heavily involved in research, I don't think that saying you want a PhD in English for any other reason than becoming a research academic would impress them or help your app. Of course everyone has and should have plans B, C, and D, and be open to other working options. Again, though, I wouldn't waste space on the SOP hemming and hawing about various possibilities.

Agreed.

Especially at schools that offer any sort of funding, the admissions committee is simply not going to be convinced the ask their institution to invest thousands of dollars in you if you're not serious about using your education to do what the training prepares you for: a life of the mind, a life of teaching, a life of research.

Even if your plan is to do something else with your degree, it's important to give the committee the impression that you have intentions to become a professor -- rather, they're going to assume this is your intention, and it'd be best not to let them think otherwise.

[rising_star]

Yes, you're right. But the only job that it directly qualifies you for is being an academic (CC teaching included in that category). A lot of people do other things, but that's not the purpose of the degree. It's research training.

Even if your plan is to do something else with your degree, it's important to give the committee the impression that you have intentions to become a professor -- rather, they're going to assume this is your intention, and it'd be best not to let them think otherwise.

I think you both are incredibly narrow-minded about this. Yes, doing a PhD offers training for research, but actually PhD programs offer little training in teaching (ie, 40% of being a professor). Yes, you may teach but there's little to no training provided before you're in the classroom. What you really acquire doing a PhD are research and writing skills. Those can be parlayed into any number of other fields. I think if you perused job listings, you may be amazed at the number of jobs that are specifically seeking someone with a PhD for a non-academic job. In fact, there's an entire listserve hosted by Duke University (WRK4US) for persons having advanced degrees to discuss nonacademic jobs. They share job postings, discuss job possibilities, and talk about making the transition from academia to the "real world". Have either of you even done any research on this? You're basically touting the lines that old-time professors give students.

Given how unrealistic it is to think that you'll get a job in the academy, it may be helpful to demonstrate that you understand how the research, writing, and other work you do as a graduate student can translate into some sort of post-graduate experience. Or, you know, you can lie to them and say you want to be a professor even if that isn't what you want. But remember that lying on applications can be grounds for them reneging on your acceptance and funding offer...

[jasper.milvain]

Or, you know, you can lie to them and say you want to be a professor even if that isn't what you want. But remember that lying on applications can be grounds for them reneging on your acceptance and funding offer...

The likelihood of having your funding yanked because of a change in your stated or implied career intention is vanishingly small. This is an extremely unhelpful thing to say on the applications board, which is full of people who are very nervous about making a mis-step.

I think you both are incredibly narrow-minded about this. Yes, doing a PhD offers training for research, but actually PhD programs offer little training in teaching (ie, 40% of being a professor). Yes, you may teach but there's little to no training provided before you're in the classroom. What you really acquire doing a PhD are research and writing skills. Those can be parlayed into any number of other fields. I think if you perused job listings, you may be amazed at the number of jobs that are specifically seeking someone with a PhD for a non-academic job. In fact, there's an entire listserve hosted by Duke University (WRK4US) for persons having advanced degrees to discuss nonacademic jobs. They share job postings, discuss job possibilities, and talk about making the transition from academia to the "real world". Have either of you even done any research on this? You're basically touting the lines that old-time professors give students.

Believe me, as a new English PhD student I am very aware of the limitations of the job market in my field, and the necessity of thinking about other options. It is impossible to miss that message these days. We are not, however, discussing post-PhD transitions or ways to leave academia. We are discussing applications. Given the choice between two students, one with academic ambitions and one with alternate career goals, equal applicants in all other areas, the vast, vast majority of English departments would pick the aspiring professor. Why? Because the department resources for career development and placement are geared towards the academic market, and the student will be a better fit. Because if the student goes on to become one of the lucky group who find tenure track work, they will improve the department's placement rate, helping them attract better students down the line. Because the adcoms are made up of people who have chosen the academic path themselves, and believe strongly in its importance and the possibility of contributing strong work, even in a difficult market. Because students building up an academic CV are hungrier, and more likely to throw themselves in to grant applications, which relieve a financial burden on their department. I'm sure that many of these reasons are out of touch with market realities, some may be objectionable to you for various reasons, and of course there are exceptions to all of them. But this is the game that students are playing to get in. Once they're in, they can work towards whatever non-academic career goal they want. There is absolutely nothing wrong with presenting yourself in the most attractive light possible during the admissions phase.

I also think that your pessimism about the market is valid, but that it would be misplaced in an SOP. Am I going to be a tenure track professor? Likely not, but possibly. I'm going to go into my program and work my ass off to try. (And heck, my program has a 50% TT placement rate, so there's a good chance.) There's no value in giving in to despair before a degree has even started. That's advice that came from my youngest, most flexible and liveliest mentor, not the old boy's club. Why present yourself as already hedging your bets?

The short version: While the purpose of training in the humanities and the future of the job market are important and complicated questions, when it comes down to the simple strategic decision of how to present your ambitions in your SOP, expressing an interest in academia is the best choice.

[kfed2020]

I think you both are incredibly narrow-minded about this. Yes, doing a PhD offers training for research, but actually PhD programs offer little training in teaching (ie, 40% of being a professor). Yes, you may teach but there's little to no training provided before you're in the classroom. What you really acquire doing a PhD are research and writing skills. Those can be parlayed into any number of other fields. I think if you perused job listings, you may be amazed at the number of jobs that are specifically seeking someone with a PhD for a non-academic job. In fact, there's an entire listserve hosted by Duke University (WRK4US) for persons having advanced degrees to discuss nonacademic jobs. They share job postings, discuss job possibilities, and talk about making the transition from academia to the "real world". Have either of you even done any research on this? You're basically touting the lines that old-time professors give students.

I stand by what I said, and wish sincerely that you would re-read it.

Yes: I recognize what a doctoral program does and doesn't give / teach you, and recognize that learning research and writing skills can be beneficial to an extraordinary range of jobs. There's no disagreement here.

I think it's irresponsible, however, to say that it's okay that someone express an interest in these sorts of nonacademic professions while applying to graduate programs geared towards preparing students for academia -- particularly if you're trying to help this person gain acceptance. No matter what you say re: the merits of graduate education "training," the fact is that these programs do believe they're training people to become scholars. This is more or less what they expect you to want to become, from the get-go. Changing your mind while enduring the process is absolutely understandable, but when you're applying? You need to give the impression that academia is your end-goal.

The Duke example doesn't prove much. Hosting that listerv is, quite simply, morally responsible, given the realities of the academic job market. But you need to keep in mind that it's a resource for current students seeking these alternatives. It's one thing to be a CURRENT PhD student who says, "I'm trying to be realistic"; it is another thing entirely to be a PROSPECTIVE student who says, to the admissions committee no less, "I'm keeping my options open." What options? These people are not going to be inspired to give you a $20K stipend plus tuition if you don't seem sure that you want to pursue a life of the mind.

While applying, you need to give the impression that your goals are in line with those of the program. Otherwise, why would they waste their resources? This is true for any field, any profession. Humanities fields in particular are already struggling to stay alive as it is. Students with iffy intentions to filter into these disciplines will not -- WILL NOT -- appeal to these dying fields.

Of course you need to be realistic. No one would expect any less. But getting a PhD is not realistic. Graduate school is not realistic. The alternatives are really not things to be discussed in your application unless you do truly want to be insulting. Get in, first -- and then explore the alternatives. Fake the funk if you have to. Strategy, people. It's really that simple.

[rising_star]

Yes: I recognize what a doctoral program does and doesn't give / teach you, and recognize that learning research and writing skills can be beneficial to an extraordinary range of jobs. There's no disagreement here.

I think it's irresponsible, however, to say that it's okay that someone express an interest in these sorts of nonacademic professions while applying to graduate programs geared towards preparing students for academia -- particularly if you're trying to help this person gain acceptance. No matter what you say re: the merits of graduate education "training," the fact is that these programs do believe they're training people to become scholars. This is more or less what they expect you to want to become, from the get-go. Changing your mind while enduring the process is absolutely understandable, but when you're applying? You need to give the impression that academia is your end-goal.

Maybe this is a difference that has to do more with what fields we are in. There are plenty of people in my graduate program that have no intention of becoming professors and said so when they applied. I should know because I did the same thing. And guess what? We all got in and got funding at various places. So making a blanket statement that all professors in graduate programs believe they are there to train scholars and to work in academia strikes me as odd since that has not been the case in my experience.

The Duke example doesn't prove much. Hosting that listerv is, quite simply, morally responsible, given the realities of the academic job market. But you need to keep in mind that it's a resource for current students seeking these alternatives. It's one thing to be a CURRENT PhD student who says, "I'm trying to be realistic"; it is another thing entirely to be a PROSPECTIVE student who says, to the admissions committee no less, "I'm keeping my options open." What options? These people are not going to be inspired to give you a $20K stipend plus tuition if you don't seem sure that you want to pursue a life of the mind.

1) The DUKE listserve is merely hosted by Duke University, just as many other academic institutions host email lists.

2) It is a resource for people that have finished graduate school, are in graduate school, and are considering graduate school. I'm not sure how or why you think it's only for current students but you've obviously never looked at the list at all.

3) Again, there are programs and fields where people will give you a stipend even if you don't want to pursue a "life of the mind". I'm pretty sure if that's all you wanted, and you wrote that in your application, you'd have less of a chance getting accepted (and particularly in anything remotely related to my subdiscipline). I guess it's different if your goal is to be the next Plato.

While applying, you need to give the impression that your goals are in line with those of the program. Otherwise, why would they waste their resources? This is true for any field, any profession.

Agreed. What I'm saying is that different programs have different goals in mind for their graduate students. Your faking an interest in academia thing wouldn't get you very far in my discipline. They want people that understand how their research and graduate work is applicable in a variety of settings, including those beyond college campuses. Please don't get stuck in the trap of thinking that whatever the goal of your specific department is, it is the same goal held by every other department. Departments have different goals just like applicants.

[kfed2020]

Maybe this is a difference that has to do more with what fields we are in. There are plenty of people in my graduate program that have no intention of becoming professors and said so when they applied. I should know because I did the same thing. And guess what? We all got in and got funding at various places. So making a blanket statement that all professors in graduate programs believe they are there to train scholars and to work in academia strikes me as odd since that has not been the case in my experience.

I said: "I think it's irresponsible, however, to say that it's okay that someone express an interest in these sorts of nonacademic professions while applying to graduate programs geared towards preparing students for academia." I hope that clears up what seems to be the crux of our disagreement, as I think we're both right, but my assertion was pretty specific. I can't really speak for or about disciplines where students regularly pursue other career options, but certainly for disciplines in which students are expected to filter into academia, I do believe that everything I said is true.

I've seen the Duke listserv, am not sure what you're clarifying in your first point, and slightly disagree with your second; the listserv is obviously going to be of interest for prospective students, but it's bound to be of more direct use for current or graduated students who have to think in more concrete ways about these options.

As for the third point:

Again, there are programs and fields where people will give you a stipend even if you don't want to pursue a "life of the mind". I'm pretty sure if that's all you wanted, and you wrote that in your application, you'd have less of a chance getting accepted (and particularly in anything remotely related to my subdiscipline). I guess it's different if your goal is to be the next Plato.

I'd be careful about mocking this... The life of an intellectual is a life of the mind, the desire of which is, indeed, precisely what many graduate programs are looking for. It's something many people take very seriously -- some of your colleagues among them, no doubt.

[modernity]

I don't think that you can make a catch all statement like you are kfed. I think professors and their departments are like any other group of people in the world. Some of them are certainly going to be emphatic that all of their students have very solid goals to become professors (despite how unrealistic this has proven to be given the current university system, and the path it seems to be going down) and others are going to recognize the current state of the university, the economy, etc. and be more inclined to accept students with whatever ambitions they may have. Making sweeping statements about what departments want is a very difficult task at best. There are a few programs that I am applying to this year that have statements on their applications page that say things similar to "while we usually encourage our students down the academic path, and will certainly support that, it is also our duty to point out the few academic jobs available and the large pool of applicants competing for them. Given these circumstances, we encourage students to consider positions outside of this realm..." So I have to say that I've seen direct evidence to the contrary, though with some other programs you may be exactly right. I certainly don't think you should be plugging in every possible idea you've ever had for your future into your SOP, or debating which path is the correct one. However, as with every aspect of the SOP a potential candidate needs to research the schools philosophy, talk to advisers there, etc. and feel out what the school's opinion on this might be.