<p>putting together my personal statement. i'm emphasizing my experiences and (hopefully) passion for the subject. i'm nearing the end, and i'm now wondering - do I have to somehow show that I have a life (e.g. sports, extra curriculars?) or is just talking about previous training and experience good enough?</p>
<p>this isn't to say i sound like a nerd/bookworm in my essay, but do i have to make an effort to show that i'm not? or is that an undergraduate thing? </p>
<p>Graduate admissions are about finding out whether or not you have the skills necessary to be a successful researcher capable of doing masters- or PhD-level research. They don't care about extracurriculars that have nothing to do with research skills. Graduate school admissions are about picking future researchers, not about picking well-rounded individuals like undergraduate admissions is about.</p>
<p>The best thing that you can do for preparing for graduate school is doing some research during your undergraduate career (you don't have to cure cancer or even be published; you just need to show your prospective schools that you can do research). I've read from a CMU computer science graduate admissions handbook (I don't have the link off hand, but Google for it) that a graduate school is more apt to accept a 3.6 GPA student with good GRE scores and extensive research experience, than one with even a 4.0 GPA, perfect GRE scores, yet no research experience.</p>
<p>Grad schools only care about your competance in your field. I've actually heard (who knows if it is really true, but still food for thought) that being too well-rounded can hurt you. It may make it seem like you are not completely committed to your field.</p>
<p>I beg to differ....I think being involved, while having good grades and prepared coursework/research in your chosen field shows you are organized, a leader if you are the head of an organization, as well as ready for work at the graduate level. I am a Spanish major and have stellar grades. I also am the head of two major organizations at my school. I don't feel that would hurt me as a candidate, but only prove that I am able to handle any ammount of work given to me.</p>
<p>...being well rounded can hurt you??? I'm a chem major and a creative writing minor. I feel like I show a fair amount of dedication to my field (I'm applying to my school's 4 year BA/MS program, I'm working in a lab junior and senior year and the summer in between, and I write chemistry things for the school undergrad science journal). Could my minor actually hurt me?</p>
<p>Of course not. If you spent your summers doing writing internships in place of chemistry, THEN it might hurt you. If you use your alternate interest to benefit your primary field, as you appear to be doing by writing in the science journal, then of course that can only be good. </p>
<p>The point of these responses is, grad schools want students who are really good at one thing, not students who are decent at a lot of things.</p>
<p>It's a sad state of affairs if students need to avoid demonstrating multiple interests and general intellectual curiosity in order to demonstrate their dedication to a particular subject. I'm aware that there will always be an inherent conflict between depth and breadth of knowledge, but assuming one has time to devote to multiple interests without being spread too thin, I don't see why well-roundedness should be especially damaging to one's credibility. And even supposing it's true that this "well-roundedness" (which I interpret as "having multiple and varied interests") is a potential detractor, would you give up your secondary interests for the sake of appearances? What sort of system would you be supporting if you did?</p>
<p>I'm majoring in English and dance at Rutgers University, and I had a discussion with a literature professor and administrator whom I very much respect about whether or not my manifest love for dance would lessen my credibility in academia. He told me that the liberal arts, at least, have a great respect for the arts, and one of the best graduate admissions essays he ever read was written by a young professional dancer who wrote about being on tour with his company and reading on their tour bus late at night. He got in, so stick that in your pipe and smoke it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
He got in, so stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Your one example, in a field different from those we were talking about, doesn't change the fact that spreading yourself too thin can hurt you in a lot of cases. Most ph.d. programs want to find the people that will have a great influence on their field in the future. Most people who make huge contributions have a passion means their field takes up a mojority of their time.</p>
<p>I think there's always going to be a difference between the person an applicant really is and the person they present in an application. At the most basic level, an applicant who spends his application space discussing his abiding love for something else is being completely irrelevant. You have a limited amount of application space, and it behooves you to keep that space on topic. </p>
<p>It is also widely bantered about (and presumably true) that the best predictor of success in graduate school is dedication to the idea of getting the degree. High grades and test scores are great, but the skills that can get a student a 4.0 GPA and a perfect GRE score aren't necessarily the same skills that can get him through his PhD program. In that sense, graduate schools are perfectly justified in trying to gauge applicants' dedication -- if they have limited funds, why should they waste money on students who seem inclined to quit the program a year in to pursue some other field?</p>
<p>I don't think anyone should drop activities for the sake of graduate school applications. Still, saying "I couldn't do undergraduate research because I had X outside interest" puts an applicant in a pretty weak position compared to other people who had outside interests, but still did preparatory things like research. Outside activities are fine so long as the applicant still has the expected preparation.</p>
<p>No need to be so caustic just because I may not be one of your "we"-- science students, I'm presuming. This conversation started as a general discussion, and I specifically stated that my comment was geared toward liberal arts students. (I'm assuming I'm not the only one on this forum.) </p>
<p>Besides, being well-versed in more than one field can allow you to look at information with various paradigms and make cross-disciplinary connections-- it can be a positive thing, too.</p>
<p>When you say "liberal arts," you mean "humanities" (and maybe also "social sciences"), right?</p>
<p>
[quote]
liberal arts
1. the academic course of instruction at a college intended to provide general knowledge and comprising the arts, humanities, natural sciences, and social sciences, as opposed to professional or technical subjects.
<p>It's interesting that you accuse McGirt of being caustic, when he has expressed a simple observation in a objective way, and you jumped to be insulting in your first post. Perhaps you have issues with differing opinions. If so, I suggest you learn to respond appropriately before you post anymore. This is a grad school forum, where we are all basically civil even when we disagree strongly. We are adults, and disagreeing without being insulting is a necessary characteristic in grad school. We expect the same on this forum.</p>
<p>Regardless of whether you choose to take my advice, your posts have been insulting, unprovoked, and uncalled for.</p>
<p>I've heard "liberal arts" used interchangeably with "humanities" often enough, but since that's not its primary meaning, consider me corrected.</p>
<p>Desp--</p>
<p>I didn't mean to insult anyone in particular; if anything, I aimed to question the educational system that we're all participating in, and I felt like my post was automatically dismissed as irrelevant because it wasn't being especially helpful or productive. I happen to think questioning your beliefs is useful, but if my line of thought was unduly provocative, I apologize.</p>
<p>Re: my example
I was just hoping to show that there is no hard and fast rule stating that having outside interests is detrimental. I've worried about it myself, and I've been assured that having multiple interests is not in and of itself negatively viewed.</p>
<p>Re: bluealien's post
I think there's something questionable happening if people have to pretend to be less interested in the world than they are in order to succeed. I'm not saying that people shouldn't devote the majority of their time and energy to the field they'll ultimately end up pursuing. There seems to be a sort of cultural valuation on devotion to a single field, though-- particularly a division between the humanities and the sciences. C.P. Snow wrote about "The Two Cultures," as he called them, in 1959, but I think it's a dialogue that's still relevant today.</p>
<p>I think that "the liberal arts" as a synonym of "the humanities" is a hijacking of the phrase. It's probably a consequence of the increasing specialization in the sciences, or the rise and respect of the sciences in human life.</p>