Passive voice in the SOP

[Maya]

Anyone else here having trouble getting their SOP out of the passive and into the active voice? Bah, I have always gotten away with using the passive in my BA and MA papers, and now I'm mad that my professors didn't get on me for that earlier. I am having so much trouble writing the SOP now because I'm writing in a way that feels so unnatural (using the active), even though it should be second nature by now.

The over-use of the passive voice has made it become evident that English 101 needs to taken once again.

[captiv8ed]

Luckily my mentor is absolutely over-the-top about active voice. I have learned to live in fear of the passive. But I have noticed on applyingtograd on livejournal that a lot of people write their SOPs in the passive voice and most commenters do not react to it.

[glasses]

I have learned to live in fear of the passive.

Me too.

[ridgey]

I don't think the passive is something to be avoided on principle. The problem is that its use often paints the writer into a corner and makes for awkward writing. If this is a problem for you, then try to un-awkwardise your writing, and the passive may disappear. If your writing, even in the passive, is clear, then why bother?

Some disciplines favour the passive. Read the methods section of a scientific paper "X, Y and Z were placed in a beaker. After 22 minutes kryptonite was added. Extract D underwent electrophoresis." (Yes, I realise that would be a truly bizzarre experiment!)

[UnlikelyGrad]

Some disciplines favour the passive. Read the methods section of a scientific paper "X, Y and Z were placed in a beaker. After 22 minutes kryptonite was added. Extract D underwent electrophoresis." (Yes, I realise that would be a truly bizzarre experiment!)

LOL!!

I do have a tendency to shift back and forth (active/passive) if I'm writing in third person. I solved this by writing my SoP in first person. I think it turned out pretty well. (I was only accepted at 4/9 schools but a couple of the other 5 said that they probably would have accepted me had they not been overwhelmed by applications last year.)

If you are any good at narrative writing, I'd recommend a first-person SoP.

[KieBelle]

IMO, passive voice has no place in a SOP. You are trying to convince the reader that you are confident and prepared. Using passive voice implies just the opposite. "I hope to", "I believe I will", etc... blech. That kind of writing just sounds wimpy.

[ridgey]

IMO, passive voice has no place in a SOP. You are trying to convince the reader that you are confident and prepared. Using passive voice implies just the opposite. "I hope to", "I believe I will", etc... blech. That kind of writing just sounds wimpy.

I agree that stronger language is better. But the examples you give aren't passive voice. "I hope to study chocolate's effect on my mood in Cool PhD Program" is still active voice. "The effect of chocolate on my mood will be studied in my time at Cool PhD program" is stronger, in that it's not wishy-washy, but is the passive voice.

[Pamphilia]

"The effect of chocolate on my mood will be studied in my time at Cool PhD program" is stronger, in that it's not wishy-washy, but is the passive voice.

Okay, so I just had this really long and totally brilliant response all written and ready to post, when my computer crashed. Gah. The long and short of it is: the passive voice can be effective if used sparingly and deliberately (see this clause), but if you use it too often or unconsciously, it will significantly weaken your writing. There are, also, some venues and genres of writing in which passive constructions are not only acceptable, but necessary (see the science example given in this thread). However, those are specific styles and genres that require passive constructions--once again--for a reason. A statement of purpose is a document in which I would avoid using the passive voice unless you use it for a really specific reason. It can be hard to avoid these constructions, especially when we're all trying to write this mask of seeming humility while flaunting our accomplishments.

The above example about chocolate is, in fact, a very weak construction because it lacks personal agency. That is, the speaker here has declined to take responsibility for her/his scholarship: "The effect of chocolate will be studied..." by whom? It makes it sound like the speaker will just sit back and allow the effects of chocolate to be studied rather than taking any initiative to study them him/herself. And, imagine if we were to add the personal agent to this construction: "The effects of chocolate will be studied by me." Super awkward! If you want to avoid the "wishy-washy," you need to say something like, "I will study the effects of chocolate." However, depending on your palate, this may be a little too bold.

Thus speaketh the editor.

[Pamphilia]

IMO, passive voice has no place in a SOP. You are trying to convince the reader that you are confident and prepared. Using passive voice implies just the opposite. "I hope to", "I believe I will", etc... blech. That kind of writing just sounds wimpy.

Props to you if you write have a strong idea of what kind of writing you like in your SOP. But, as Ridgey points out, "I hope" and "I believe" are not passive constructions. The subject is still doing the action (of hoping or believing) not having action done to it.

[KieBelle]

Props to you if you write have a strong idea of what kind of writing you like in your SOP. But, as Ridgey points out, "I hope" and "I believe" are not passive constructions. The subject is still doing the action (of hoping or believing) not having action done to it.

Whoops! Now I look like a moron. I blame my second-rate public school education. To this day I couldn't tell you the rules of how to write well or specific grammar terms, but I'm a pretty decent writer, I swear! (thanks to reading endless amounts of books in my spare time) So perhaps I'll keep my mouth shut from now on in threads like this one.

[ridgey]

Whoops! Now I look like a moron. I blame my second-rate public school education. To this day I couldn't tell you the rules of how to write well or specific grammar terms, but I'm a pretty decent writer, I swear! (thanks to reading endless amounts of books in my spare time) So perhaps I'll keep my mouth shut from now on in threads like this one.

See, you don't actually have to know the names of various writing devices to be able to use them. And using them well (i.e. writing well) is certainly more valuable for those of us not in languages.

[readeatsleep]

i agree. fear of the passive voice is passe. additionally, i think the passive voice is philosophically superior to the active voice, since the active voice creates a fantasy of agency in the subject.

[Pamphilia]

See, you don't actually have to know the names of various writing devices to be able to use them. And using them well (i.e. writing well) is certainly more valuable for those of us not in languages.

Yes.

i agree. fear of the passive voice is passe. additionally, i think the passive voice is philosophically superior to the active voice, since the active voice creates a fantasy of agency in the subject.

Ha. No.

[Maya]

Well, all I know is that apparently using the passive in one's SOP is a biiiiig no-no, and my first sentence is one big passively written sentence!

Oh well, I like it the way it is, and I have made the rest of it 'active', so, hopefully they won't chuck my sop on the floor after reading the first sentence!

[glasses]

i agree. fear of the passive voice is passe. additionally, i think the passive voice is philosophically superior to the active voice, since the active voice creates a fantasy of agency in the subject.

. . . What? "Philosophically superior"? That doesn't make any sense. "Fantasy of agency"? I mean, O.K., the possible merits of "fantasy of agency" in certain texts is an issue for another time, but on what planet is it a good idea for a statement of purpose? There shouldn't be any fantasy of agency in a statement of purpose -- the writer should have the agency, and the writer should show that!

[captiv8ed]

i agree. fear of the passive voice is passe. additionally, i think the passive voice is philosophically superior to the active voice, since the active voice creates a fantasy of agency in the subject.

You said that pretty actively

And not everyone agrees.

http://ls.berkeley.edu/soc/diversity/apply/tips.html

http://www.essayedge.com/graduate/essayadvice/course/lfour_verbs.html

[Maya]

http://ls.berkeley.edu/soc/diversity/apply/tips.html

that's where my fear all began....

[ColorlessGreen]

I doubt there's anything wrong with using the passive voice in your SOP, unless it seems jarring to you and your editors. The passive voice has its uses in English, and can be extremely effective when used well, so the only important question is whether you DO use it well. In my opinion, a good passive construction is an invisible one; your readers should be too engrossed in your writing to notice whether it is in active or passive voice.

In the interest of full transparency, I offer my own SOP's beginning sentence, the lone passive construction in the piece:

"My original decision to study linguistics was based on a love of language, little real information, and a great deal of enthusiasm."

[alexis]

totally random, but I had just read this thread and then a few minutes later heard this on late night with jimmy fallon-

(bit where they pretend to be saying the thoughts of one of the guys in The Roots)

"Why do they call it Toys'R'Us and use the passive voice? It should be called We'R'Toys."

Needless to say, it made me laugh.

Edited December 1, 2009 by alexis

[kandeya]

i'll paraphrase what little red schoolhouse taught me.

passive construction is not inherently bad. what is bad is breaking up the core of your sentence. the core is the character and the action (subject and verb, for the most part). if the passive voice keeps the core of your sentence intact, then it will read more naturally and quickly than the active voice alternative. also, look out for those nominalizations.

[circumfession]

Okay, so I just had this really long and totally brilliant response all written and ready to post, when my computer crashed. Gah. The long and short of it is: the passive voice can be effective if used sparingly and deliberately (see this clause), but if you use it too often or unconsciously, it will significantly weaken your writing. There are, also, some venues and genres of writing in which passive constructions are not only acceptable, but necessary (see the science example given in this thread). However, those are specific styles and genres that require passive constructions--once again--for a reason. A statement of purpose is a document in which I would avoid using the passive voice unless you use it for a really specific reason. It can be hard to avoid these constructions, especially when we're all trying to write this mask of seeming humility while flaunting our accomplishments.

The above example about chocolate is, in fact, a very weak construction because it lacks personal agency. That is, the speaker here has declined to take responsibility for her/his scholarship: "The effect of chocolate will be studied..." by whom? It makes it sound like the speaker will just sit back and allow the effects of chocolate to be studied rather than taking any initiative to study them him/herself. And, imagine if we were to add the personal agent to this construction: "The effects of chocolate will be studied by me." Super awkward! If you want to avoid the "wishy-washy," you need to say something like, "I will study the effects of chocolate." However, depending on your palate, this may be a little too bold.

Thus speaketh the editor.

This. Precisely.

Strangely enough, I'm an English graduate student--and hence, the sort that would TEACH writing 101 classes. While it's true that we have to drill into our (fresh-out-of-high-school) students' heads the basic grammatical guidelines (which includes avoiding the passive), it's a rule of thumb that we--as scholars--frequently break. When I'm grading papers, I only flag passive construction when it sounds awkward, or get in the way of conveying the author's claims. Pamphilia described the justifications for this construction well: the passive voice creates a certain effect (it hides or de-emphasizes agency, among other things) which can be extremely useful when used sparingly and deliberately. Used in the right context, it can convey a certain sense of humbleness (which isn't to be confused for the lack of confidence) that can be potently disarming. For those of us who are obsessed about how the statement "reads," it also helps to break up monotony by letting us vary the sentence structure without significantly changing the meaning.

I won't go into the debate on philosophical superiority (superior for what? in what context? what is the localized goal?), but in my field, the ad-comms are hyperaware of blatant rhetorical posturing. Trying to *sound* confident by avoiding the passive voice, or avoiding all qualifications ("I would like to...I hope..." etc) makes the writer seem overly arrogant. I'm not suggesting that *every* ad-comm in every discipline would pick up or view this approach negatively, but I'm fairly sure that it wouldn't work well for anyone applying to English or a closely related discipline. You'd want the confidence to "come through" in the substance of what you say, not compensated for via the style. I think an understated rhetorical style, backed by a statement that focuses on the research not only more closely mirrors (good) academic writing for my field, but also makes for a far more effective SoP.

The secret to writing an SoP, if there is any, is to convey your interests in a way that infects your readers with a sense of your excitement, by showing them *why* your work is so cool and relevant. The most effective statements that I've seen (again, for my field) focuses on the work, not on the writer...yet, in the process of conveying that info, also gives a glimpse of the writer's personality. That "peripheral" view of the author, in a statement that's focused on the research, tends to best negotiate the balance between lending personality to the statement while getting the job done.

Edited December 2, 2009 by circumfession