SoP - post #2

[sew8d]

Hokay - so this is the last time I plan on posting an SoP anywhere, as deadlines are fast approaching and I just want them all to be sent in before the earliest deadline so I can STOP WORRYING. Anyway, it's been posted here, overhauled, shopped around elsewhere, edited, shopped around again, edited again... and here it is:

My interest in Spanish literature and culture was initially influenced by courses I took in high school, both in Spanish language and in English literature courses that included the study of work by South American boom writers. Subsequent courses taken at the University of Virginia continued to shape my interests, such as my semester in UVa’s study abroad program in Valencia, Spain. There, I gained a grounding in both Spanish American and peninsular studies, but certainly developed a specific affinity for peninsular topics. For examply, while it may be considered well-trodden ground, the Spanish civil war, its effects on Spaniards, and its treatment in multiple forms of media, particularly post-Franco era cinema, are matters I find to still be relevant to peninsular studies. In the same vein, while Federico Garcia Lorca’s rural tragedies have been amply addressed in scholarly writing, I feel his lesser known plays are deserving of closer scrutiny, specifically Así que pasen cinco años and El público. Both of these are topics I have already studied, but would enjoy the chance to continue with in more depth.

Further, recent travels to Peru and Guatemala in the Fall of 2009 have helped foster a deep curiosity for cultural concerns, specifically those related to government involvement. For instance, Guatemala is known as being one of the most dangerous countries in the Americas, its newspapers filled with reports of violent acts often resulting in death. At the same time, corruption in both the government and the police force serve to impede efforts to rectify the situation; rather, local citizen response often serves the purpose that is normally served by the government and police. My background in political philosophy has brought me to wonder what the implications exist for such a preference for citizen response. Is it more effective? What lingering effects does the Guatemalan civil war still have and are they possibly exaggerated? Other intriguing subjects have recently caught my attention, such as the effect of the pattern of Brazilian immigration to America on both the area they choose to populate, specifically Massachusetts, and also the homes they leave behind in Brazil. These ideas are things I have not had the chance to study in an official capacity, but would like to be able to explore. Moreover, I am also curious as to how such matters have been treated in both literature and other forms of media.

My undergraduate thesis demonstrates my ability to connect different ideas from separate fields, identify problems or areas for consideration, and synthesize current events and other relevant happenings in an effort to provide a new view or interpretation of a topic. In it I addressed the controversial issue of same-sex marriage in the USA applied within the context of Habermas' conception of the public sphere, with reference to matters of public and private self. Although my thesis was unrelated to Spanish, I have used these same skills in all of my essays produced for undergraduate Spanish courses, relating to the works of Federico Garcia Lorca, Jorge Luis Borges, Carmen Laforet, Homero Aridjis, and Pedro Calderón de la Barca, among others. Furthermore, the courses I have taken provide me with a spectrum of influences to draw upon, including basic media theory, philosophy, political theory, and film studies.

With this varied background, I have discovered I am not satisfied reviewing and understanding another’s opinion without trying to put forth additional insight or commentary, or even hopefully to address a matter I feel has been overlooked. This connection is indicative of my general outlook on life; what motivates me when evaluating a situation is the purpose involved. This aspect of my personality is one of the main reasons I wish to continue my education in a graduate program. My varied interests represent the kind of career I aim for as a professor at a research university, helping to foster future scholars and actively pursuing my interests at the same time.

In my undergraduate studies in Spanish at UVa, I began the exploration that I hope to continue at the same institution. UVa’s Spanish program is certainly one of the most competitive, and having already participated in the program, I am well aware of the possibilities of combining my work in the Spanish department with other departments. I look forward to being able to strengthen the relationships I developed with certain professors, and being able to form new ones. Additionally, while I understand David Haberly will no longer be a part of the department, I am hopeful that whoever serves as his replacement will be able to help sustain opportunities for studying Portuguese.

[mudlark]

Hi! Current lit PhD here.

My interest in Spanish literature and culture was initially influenced by courses I took in high school, both in Spanish language and in English literature courses that included the study of work by South American boom writers.

I think this is a weak opener. You want to stand out from the pack. Taking high school Spanish and English is not noteworthy enough to include in an SOP, IMO, let alone start with. Why not rephrase it so that it's about your topic? Your opener could be:

The Spanish civil war, its effects on Spaniards, and its treatment in multiple forms of media, particularly post-Franco era cinema, are matters of key importance to peninsular studies. While some works dealing with the war, such as Federico Garcia Lorca’s rural tragedies have been amply addressed in scholarly writing, I feel his lesser known plays are deserving of closer scrutiny, specifically Así que pasen cinco años and El público. These plays [tell us something important that mudlark has no idea about and give us a fresh perspective on Spain and the war]. Through my study at the University of Virginia and, in particular, its study abroad program in Valencia, Spain, I have gained a grounding in both Spanish American and peninsular studies. In my PhD, I intend to pursue my specific affinity for peninsular topics in order to contribute to the scholarly conversation on the effects of the war on narratives of citizenship.

In this version, instead of picking up one SOP out of a katrillion and seeing "high school graduate", the committee members will see "researcher with a well-formed interest".

Further, recent travels to Peru and Guatemala in the Fall of 2009 have helped foster a deep curiosity for cultural concerns, specifically those related to government involvement.

Again, I'd lead with ideas first, personal hook second. I know that this is partly a stylistic preference, but I firmly believe that professors are more interested in your ideas than your feelings.

So something like this:

In my proposed research, I will combine political philosophy with literary criticism.

Then launch into Guatemala. As someone outside of your field, I find the jump from Spain to Guatemala a little abrupt. What's the specific link? I also think that you should replace your comments about interest and curiosity with clear plans to research specific topics, or use specific methodologies or tools.

My undergraduate thesis demonstrates my ability to connect different ideas from separate fields, identify problems or areas for consideration, and synthesize current events and other relevant happenings in an effort to provide a new view or interpretation of a topic. In it I addressed the controversial issue of same-sex marriage in the USA applied within the context of Habermas' conception of the public sphere, with reference to matters of public and private self. Although my thesis was unrelated to Spanish, I have used these same skills in all of my essays produced for undergraduate Spanish courses, relating to the works of Federico Garcia Lorca, Jorge Luis Borges, Carmen Laforet, Homero Aridjis, and Pedro Calderón de la Barca, among others. Furthermore, the courses I have taken provide me with a spectrum of influences to draw upon, including basic media theory, philosophy, political theory, and film studies.

No complaints about this part. Looks good.

With this varied background, I have discovered I am not satisfied reviewing and understanding another’s opinion without trying to put forth additional insight or commentary, or even hopefully to address a matter I feel has been overlooked. This connection is indicative of my general outlook on life; what motivates me when evaluating a situation is the purpose involved. This aspect of my personality is one of the main reasons I wish to continue my education in a graduate program. My varied interests represent the kind of career I aim for as a professor at a research university, helping to foster future scholars and actively pursuing my interests at the same time.

I dunno... I feel like you're SHOWING this in the rest of the SOP, so you don't need to TELL us it again. A detailed research plan to give scholarly attention to underlooked texts speaks volumes about intellectual curiosity in a way that a paragraph like this can't.

In my undergraduate studies in Spanish at UVa, I began the exploration that I hope to continue at the same institution. UVa’s Spanish program is certainly one of the most competitive, and having already participated in the program, I am well aware of the possibilities of combining my work in the Spanish department with other departments. I look forward to being able to strengthen the relationships I developed with certain professors, and being able to form new ones. Additionally, while I understand David Haberly will no longer be a part of the department, I am hopeful that whoever serves as his replacement will be able to help sustain opportunities for studying Portuguese.

I'm confused about why you're mentioning a retired language professor by name, but not the people who would be able to supervise your work.

I think that you need to be less personal/casual in this statement. Your vacations are not really relevant, for example. Reading this, I feel like you have energy and curiosity, but haven't put the work into channeling that into a coherent set of feasible research questions yet. That's fine, but it might not be good enough. A section on methodology, a brief review of criticism, or a sense of the conversation that you're intervening in, would all be more useful than the personal info you have here. I also think that this could be much more coherent. I'm not sure what time period you're dealing with, or whether you're doing a transnational project (Spain and Guatemala) or not. So more detail, please! You can fit it in if you trim some fat.

Hope this wasn't too harsh. It wasn't meant to be.

[sew8d]

I think that you need to be less personal/casual in this statement. Your vacations are not really relevant, for example. Reading this, I feel like you have energy and curiosity, but haven't put the work into channeling that into a coherent set of feasible research questions yet. That's fine, but it might not be good enough. A section on methodology, a brief review of criticism, or a sense of the conversation that you're intervening in, would all be more useful than the personal info you have here. I also think that this could be much more coherent. I'm not sure what time period you're dealing with, or whether you're doing a transnational project (Spain and Guatemala) or not. So more detail, please! You can fit it in if you trim some fat.

Hope this wasn't too harsh. It wasn't meant to be.

Thanks for the response, mudlark. I had to think about it for a little while, but I guess I agree with most of what you said. It's just hard to hear after I've re-written it and re-written it, but that's the process I guess - and it's good to have people push me to deal with the stuff that makes me nervous. I plan on reworking it to be more specific - I think I've finally gotten used to that idea (even though it goes against my fear that I'd be restricting myself to what I say in the SoP). I do want to mention one thing, which is the quote I've left in.

You seem to be against the anecdotal, and I'm not quite sure how I feel about that. However, I do feel that my personal travels are relevant, at least for the field I'm applying to, especially because a personal experience is what spurred my interest for the Guatemalan topic. And even moreso because every application I've worked on asks in a separate section to list relevant personal travels, and to include in the SoP any additional information that could help evaluate aptitude or interest for the Spanish program (including personal travels).

Anyway, I think the best way to tie it all together is by my using cultural/government influences that appear in the literature - how literature responds to the ongoing social/political changes. WHICH, having just looked at one of your comments that I missed is pretty much exactly what you said, ha.

Oh, and I noticed that you reworked the initial paragraph - the only problem is that Lorca died pretty much at the beginning of the war, which lasted for almost another three years after his death. And his rural tragedies did not deal with the war, but rather social matters of particular concern for women, which have been said to also be a way for him to write about his homosexuality. That being said, I see what you're getting at

Overall, criticism is hard to take sometimes, but I really appreciate what you gave me.

[Pamphilia]

Wahoowa!

[JerryLandis]

I don't think the sew8d was tying the civil war in with García Lorca. 'In the same vein' is supposed to mean 'another popular peninsular topic that could do with more detailed research' or something like that. Personally, I think that's clear, but maybe if it causes confusion here you (sew8d) may want to rephrase that sentence slightly?

Overall I think this SOP is much better than the last one, and not just because you went with some of my suggestions! It's much more organized and easy to follow. I won't go into depth criticizing it because I'm desperately trying to work on my own SOP at the moment, but I just thought I'd point out typo you may have missed: 'examply' in the first paragraph.

[alexis]

Wahoowa!

Seconded!

[rising_star]

I plan on reworking it to be more specific - I think I've finally gotten used to that idea (even though it goes against my fear that I'd be restricting myself to what I say in the SoP). I do want to mention one thing, which is the quote I've left in.

...

Anyway, I think the best way to tie it all together is by my using cultural/government influences that appear in the literature - how literature responds to the ongoing social/political changes. WHICH, having just looked at one of your comments that I missed is pretty much exactly what you said, ha.

I'm glad to see that you plan to get more specific. You seemed to be fighting that before both when you posted here and over on/in applyingtograd. It really is what your SOP needs. I think you have the right idea about how to tie together your interests. Good luck!

[mudlark]

Oh, and I noticed that you reworked the initial paragraph - the only problem is that Lorca died pretty much at the beginning of the war, which lasted for almost another three years after his death. And his rural tragedies did not deal with the war, but rather social matters of particular concern for women, which have been said to also be a way for him to write about his homosexuality. That being said, I see what you're getting at

Ah, good. I don't know the material you're working with at all. I was trying to show a way to emphasize ideas over biography, so I'm not surprised that I screwed up the actual sense.

You seem to be against the anecdotal, and I'm not quite sure how I feel about that. However, I do feel that my personal travels are relevant, at least for the field I'm applying to, especially because a personal experience is what spurred my interest for the Guatemalan topic. And even moreso because every application I've worked on asks in a separate section to list relevant personal travels, and to include in the SoP any additional information that could help evaluate aptitude or interest for the Spanish program (including personal travels).

Ok, that makes more sense, then. Still, I would make the personal stuff secondary to the ideas--begin a paragraph with something more rigorous, and then talk about how your personal travels help you understand it. Also, are there any skills or bits of information that you picked up on your travels? Did you make any connections with people down there, or become more sensitive to certain cultural issues? That would be a better way to mention your travels than to talk about how they inspired you to work on the topic, IMO. It's not so much about what spurred your interest as it is about what you're going to do with that interest if you're admitted.

Overall, criticism is hard to take sometimes, but I really appreciate what you gave me.

Cool. I'm hanging around here because I really love reading about other peoples' ideas (and it helps me procrastinate ). Thanks for sharing yours!

[Mathētēs]

I think this is a weak opener. You want to stand out from the pack. Taking high school Spanish and English is not noteworthy enough to include in an SOP, IMO, let alone start with. Why not rephrase it so that it's about your topic? .... Again, I'd lead with ideas first, personal hook second. I know that this is partly a stylistic preference, but I firmly believe that professors are more interested in your ideas than your feelings.

Hi, thanks for the very helpful ideas expressed on this forum. I see on many posts that writers begin with how they became interested in their topic. Is how I became interested in it essential unless asked? After reading mudlark's comments quoted above, I rephrased my opening to:

"________ and ________'s sociocultural contexts significantly impacted the writers and recipients of the ________ and other ________. I am applying to the ________ program to advance my study of ...."

The first sentence is factual and gives evidence of scholarship. The following sentences state my goals. An alternative is to state the origin of my interests combined with my first sentence quoted above. However, to me that seems weaker. In my case, I don't see that the origin of my interest (as distinct from why the topic is important to research) is especially relevant. Am I incorrect? Is it simply a matter of style or which approach should I use? Thank you!

Edited December 1, 2009 by Mathētēs

[mudlark]

The first sentence is factual and gives evidence of scholarship. The following sentences state my goals. An alternative is to state the origin of my interests combined with my first sentence quoted above. However, to me that seems weaker. In my case, I don't see that the origin of my interest (as distinct from why the topic is important to research) is especially relevant. Am I incorrect? Is it simply a matter of style or which approach should I use? Thank you!

I think it is mostly style, yes. There are two schools of thought on this. Some people like anecdotes. I really don't see the point of them. The professors that I trust also don't like them. If the origin of your interest in the topic isn't directly relevant to your project and qualifications, don't include it. I had a successful round of applications with an SOP that didn't mention my background at all until the very end, and then only gave relevant educational information about projects completed, etc.