'Targeted' Statements of Purpose

Graduate School
1

<p>First off, thanks to everybody here who mentioned how big of a deal 'fit' could be--after deciding on what I wanted to study, I managed to compile a good list of schools that would be a good match.</p>

<p>My question is finding a balance in the SoP. My problem is that, at all the universities, there's one professor doing stuff I DEFINITELY want to do, and a couple at the periphery that--while they're doing interesting work--I'd rather work with THAT professor (or, alternately, as backups in case I don't mesh well with the primary reason).</p>

<p>I guess what I'm asking is, how focused should I make the SoP? Should I say something to the tune of, "I'm applying to (insert school) because Professor Z's research is exactly what I'd like to research for my PhD?" I have a feeling that could make it too limiting (although all the professors I've emailed are currently accepting students), but a smaller feeling that it also shows focus. </p>

<p>Would it be better to make mention of the peripheral professors, but with an emphasis on the professor I'd most like to work with? Or should I just state the reason I'd like to study is because of the number of faculty with research interests similar to my own?</p>

<p>Thanks for the help, and have a good one.</p>

2

<p>It’s a gamble with no right answer. Personally I recommend keeping your options open, targeting your SOP to 3-4 professors rather than 1. Bear in mind that these professors should be working in compatible areas, because otherwise you look scattered in and unfocused in your interests. If you are admitted with a second choice prof, you can bring in the first choice as a second advisor, branching across their interests.</p>

3

<p>You can certainly cover both. If your background clearly matches the professor you’re interested in each school, it’ll be pretty clear who you want to work with. I would suggest something along these lines:</p>

<p>Program X has research options that excite me greatly, with both opportunities to delve deeper into my current focus and to explore interesting new venues. </p>

<p>Being too narrow can definitely work against you. Make sure they know you have a clear idea of what you would like to do because it shows focus and committment (have a good fit with a certain lab’s research, etc) but also have a very open mind and interest in exploring your options (both so all your eggs aren’t in one basket, and to show you’re an inquisitive spirit).</p>

4

<p>this can also vary on the program/discipline you’re applying to.</p>

<p>for history PhDs, you have to get pretty narrow. there might be 4 professors that study ‘asian history,’ but one studies 1500s japan, one studies modern india, one studies modern china, and one studies colonial indonesia. you couldn’t possibly write a SOP that states you’re interested in all of these areas.</p>

<p>your best bet is to articulate a thesis/dissertation/research topic that mirrors the interests of one professor. then mention that professor by name as someone who you feel would be ideal to advise you on your interests. then mention 3-4 other professors in the department who have peripheral interests that supplement your study.</p>

<p>for example: i wanted to study the western caribbean, specifically racial identity and nation-state formation the atlantic coast of nicaragua. my advisor studies the atlantic coast of costa rica, and her interests are geographically and temporally similar to my own. there’s a professor of brazilian history who works extensively on race, so that’s a tight thematic match and a broad regional match. there’s a professor who studies nation-formation in cuba, and that’s another tight thematic match and a broad regional match. and there’s a third professor who studies environmental and labour history in honduras, which hit on some of the particulars of the story i’m trying to tell in a somewhat unexpected way. so… one clearly obvious connection to an advisor and then thematic or regional connections with a handful of others.</p>

<p>in a year when many history PhD applicants were getting shut out, and i was getting shut out from many schools with less obvious fit (the potential primary advisor studies colombia, for example), this place courted me and offered me their most competitive package. you’ve got to make yourself interesting to more than one professor, but you’ve also got to make sure that one professor can adequately advise your project.</p>

<p>another school that courted me heavily had one professor with a pretty solid match and three other professors with strong thematic, temporal, and regional interests that fit perfectly with my research. i don’t think this was an accident.</p>

<p>connect strongly to one professor and make the case for 2-4 others having at least thematic similarities in their work and that will greatly improve your chances.</p>

<p>it’s also important, however (at least in history programs), to not sound like a clone of your potential advisor. it’s a balancing act.</p>

5

<p>Thanks to all who’ve applied; and I probably should’ve posted my intended major/field of interest (cell/molecular bio major, and I’m looking into neuroscience with an emphasis in AAV-mediated neural stem cell differentiation).</p>

<p>Also, though I’m not a history major, thanks for mentioning ‘not sounding like a clone’, StrangeLight. My interests aren’t exactly like the advisor I’d be going for, but it’d be a good idea to mention the differences.</p>