Tailoring the SOP for various schools

[desimba]

Hello,

 

I am an engineer with an MBA and will be applying to a number of business schools and economics programs for the Fall 2008 admissions cycle. My interests are in the area of international economics & development economics. Some of the econ programs that I am planning on applying to include Yale/ Maryland/ Iowa/ Arizona State/ Tepper/ Wisconsin-Madison.

 

My question is regarding the Statement of Purpose (SOP). How much should I focus on tailoring the SOPs to suit the requirements of every single school? Other than the section where I change the names of the faculty members I hope to be working with, is there a lot of rewording which is necessary when I apply to these different places?

 

Thanks for your responses,

SB

[reactor]

Perhaps you could change (or include) major works/papers of the people you'd like to work with. For example, I would like to go to Princeton and work with Faruk Gul (for example) on a specific area / subfield (mention here a couple of his papers), NOT generally on "theory" or "economic theory" or "applied theory" or whatever. :) Or, I would like to go to Stanford and work with Matt Jackson on a specific area of auctions. Generalities and "one size fits all" SOPs do not add in your application. At least this is what I was told by a prof of mine and author of famous game theory books. (of course you can always get admitted even with crappy SOP if you are good enough) :)

 

You can always, and probably will, change your specific interests but, other things being equal, knowledge of the relevant literature will signal motivation and seriousness (again told so by my prof mentioned above).

[Ancalagon The Black]

desimba:

 

Did you graduate from India with an engineering degree? Which school was it? Was it one of the IITs?

 

If it wasn't then check this out since I saw that UWM was one of your choices:

 

Wisconsin Directory of International Institutions by Country

[desimba]

Yes I did graduate from one of the IITs.

 

SB

[desimba]

Well my areas of interest are unlikely to change from school to school. I am picking those programs which have strengths in international economics and are fairly highly ranked as far as overall economics programs are concerned. So the names of the big shots would not change from place to place even though the faculty members that I would like to work with would change from school to school.

 

SB

[asquare]

Mentioning specific faculty members can backfire, if, for example, those people are planning to leave the department or are not actively advising students. It's good to point out that your interests correspond to the department's strengths, but I would avoid being too specific, sounding too narrow, or sounding fake. Admissions committees read a lot of these every year and I'm sure they have finely tuned BS-meters ;) It's one thing to sound sincerely excited about a school that is a good fit and another thing to plug in an obligatory brown-nosing paragraph. Your enthusiasm and "fit" with the department should come through in the whole SOP, not just the last paragraph. And that should be because you are applying to schools that are good fits, not because you are faking it for the sake of the application.

[desimba]

Great points asquare. The way I have gone about choosing my list of schools is to look at the rankings of these schools in international economics as well as the rankings of the overall department; identify the schools which are common to both the lists and then of the schools which appear on both lists, select a sub-sample based on my specific interests and the faculty members in that department. Now when I am writing my SOP, I obviously mention my research interests earlier on but also feel compelled to include 1 specific paragraph which says why I am applying to that particular school. What would be your thoughts as to how I should structure it best?

 

Thanks,

SB

[asquare]

Including the "bonus" paragraph is fine, so long as you frame it as "my interests are a great match with the strengths of your program." Mention depth in your area of interest, work that you find exciting, etc. Just don't make it seem that you are either 1) essentially paraphrasing the department's web page or 2) so set on workiing with Professor X on topic Y that if Professor X leaves or topic Y turns out to be really far-fetched, you'll be adrift. But if you've chosen your schools well (and it sounds like you have) then this paragraph should be easy and painless.

[Chicunomics]

My problem is this. My areas of interest are micro theory and industrial organisation. Furthermore, I'm applying to basically all the top 10 departments and a few outside as well. It really does feel like there's nothing I can say in the way of 'good match' that isn't wholly artificial. Take for instance an application to Stanford GSB's program in economic analysis and policy. That program is basically tailored for those with an interest in micro theory and IO. How do I say "also, your program is an excellent fit for my interests" (in whatever way you like...) without them reading it and saying: 'oooooh really? You figured that out all on your own....?!!'

 

 

Similarly, other huge programs, which may not be as closely aligned, but still naturally have a lot of academics in my area: it just feels like anything I say to the extent of 'your program is a good fit' could be met with 'sure, but we're a good fit for almost everyone, we're top 10 after all...'

 

Where there are genuinely academics working on specific things that I have worked on, or on stuff that interests me, I feel like I could mention it, but even then: is it acceptable to say "I have an interest in issue X which persons Y and Z have looked at recently" when I myself haven't done work in the area? Again it feels like I've just gone through and picked off a couple of intersting topics from staff webpages (surprise, I have...). Really, as an adcom, I'd only buy statements like that from people that have genuinely done research of some kind in the area, and knew the staff's work BEFORE the application process...I don't know, maybe I'm being overly cynical...what do you guys think?

[polkaparty]

I agree with reactor’s and asquare’s comments above. They are great advice as always so listen to them.

 

maybe I'm being overly cynical...what do you guys think?

 

Your comments outline why the SOP apparently isn’t given much weight, I think.

 

Regarding structure: I see two main parts of the SOP:

1. Emphasize your general interest in research and things you’ve done to prepare for it. I think NWU says to mention the particularly difficult classes at your school, since your transcript doesn’t necessarily convey this information.

 

2. Discuss your research interests and signal that you are at least aware of how graduate school research is structured (i.e., you will work with an advisor on your dissertation). Show that you have some specific interests but signal that you know interests often change by not being too specific.

So there are roughly two kinds of SOP’s: Those for top schools, which are mostly a great opportunity to send your app. straight to the trash pile if you write something ridiculous; then there’s those for lower ranked schools where you want to make sure your interests are at least roughly aligned with their department and the SOP is more important. As asquare said, if you’ve chosen schools well, you should already know what to write, why you want to attend there. If you don’t immediately have ideas about what to say, I’d avoid being too specific.

[Chicunomics]

Those for top schools, which are mostly a great opportunity to send your app. straight to the trash pile if you write something ridiculous

 

Am I correct in interpreting this as meaning: "it doesn't matter so long as you don't write something ridiculous?"

 

Otherwise, yeah, I think I'm going to try to stress less about the SOP. May also get my primary advisor from last year to read over a generic version soon. Thanks for the comments.

[polkaparty]

Am I correct in interpreting this as meaning: "it doesn't matter so long as you don't write something ridiculous?"

 

Yes, although that's just my guess, obviously I'm not on an adcom so I can't say for sure.

 

I mean, like you said, the top schools are great in pretty much everything, so there isn't a problem of aligning your interests with theirs. Those adcoms don't need to take applicants' interests into account when making decisions, unless perhaps they want to quota people from different subfields.

 

So to them, all that matters is the rest of your application, as well as knowing that you know what pursuing an econ PhD entails (which they can learn from your letters).

 

I suppose the SOP is like the GRE for top schools. It won't distinguish you--it can only hurt if something goes wrong.

 

If anyone dissents, please speak, I am in the same boat as everyone here and my posts just represent my current thoughts on SOPs....

[Ancalagon The Black]

I reckon that the SOP is a great place to back up on existing research or any such projects that you have done.

 

If you can manage to fit it with any work being currently done by a faculty at any school, I think that you have your SOP ready.

 

Everything being said and done, there are so many "like" applicants today that the degree of randomness in admissions into the top 10 -15 have presumably increased.

 

In fact, this could be a great research topic for any paper in my opinion.... :D

[reactor]

Mentioning specific faculty members can backfire, if, for example, those people are planning to leave the department or are not actively advising students.

 

But then this could literally "save" you from going to a school where the people who are the reason you are applying are not going to be available.

[asquare]

But then this could literally "save" you from going to a school where the people who are the reason you are applying are not going to be available.

True iff the people you mention in your application are the only reason you want to go to the school. But not a good strategy if you are mentioning them only to score points or brown-nose with the admissions committee. If you are interested in the school because of its general strength in your area of interest, say that, and mention specific faculty as examples rather than as the primary reasons you want to attend.

[reactor]

I would add: "True iff the people you mention in your application are the only reason you want to go to the school over another similarly-ranked school".

 

Surely specific faculty may not be the only reason that one would like to go, say, to MIT but may actually be the only reason for prefering it over, say, Stanford.

 

That "technicality" aside, I see your point and I agree. :)

[asquare]

I would add: "True iff the people you mention in your application are the only reason you want to go to the school over another similarly-ranked school".

 

Surely specific faculty may not be the only reason that one would like to go, say, to MIT but may actually be the only reason for prefering it over, say, Stanford.

 

That "technicality" aside, I see your point and I agree. :)

Yes, but since the decision to go to one school over another similarly ranked school is made conditional upon being admitted to both schools, then the presence of specific faculty members is something you should use to make the ex post decision, but not something you you want to write down in a way that might negatively affect your chance of admissions :)

[reactor]

the presence of specific faculty members is something you should use to make the ex post decision, but not something you you want to write down in a way that might negatively affect your chance of admissions :)

 

Let me put it this way: in most cases the admission committee will have more information than the applicant about what the plans of their professors are. So, in the extreme case, they can decline admission to an applicant who wants to work with profs who are all going to leave (see UCLA a couple of years ago) or, better, inform the applicant about that. On the other hand, you try mentioning no specific names in the application and if you get admitted send an email asking who is going to stay etc

 

I wish we could get the opinion of someone who was admitted to a good US program and this is not me. :)

[08Applicant]

I've begun the process of researching professors with similar fields as my own. I usually come away with 5-7 people whose work I find interesting. Hopefully all 5-7 won't be gone this time next year. I'm still figuring out a way to work those names into my SOP and relate them to my own interests and experience.

 

If anything, really taking the time to narrow down faculty in your area of interest helps to eliminate schools. If I can't find 5 or more faculty I like, I may reconsider. Just because it's Harvard doesn't mean they have exactly what you're looking for. (Just kidding, of course Harvard has everything)

[Antichron]

One of the first drafts of my SOPs that I wrote last year mentioned a couple professors' names, but I quickly cut them out of the next draft after hearing some comments from one of my letter writers.

 

He said, "Imagine you're on the admissions committee, and a student mentions your name. You would feel like you're being manipulated. Imagine you're on the admissions committee, and a student mentions the names of a few of your colleagues but not you, especially if you have done some work in the field. You feel angry."

[reactor]

"Imagine you're on the admissions committee, and a student mentions your name. You would feel like you're being manipulated."

 

Why feel being manipulated by reading that someone wants to work on an extention of one of your papers? Won't the person who wrote the SOP be applying to that school because she wants to work with some people because these people have done some important work in their fields? How can reading what the applicant thinks is interesting and "extendable" create the feeling of manipulation? Of course I see the point if the student mentions just general/fluffy stuff but knowledge of the issues/questions remaining after someone's work should, if anything, impress the adcom (imho).

[asianecon]

I think the point is, one shouldn't name-drop. Research isn't a monopoly of a single person so I guess it's just more prudent if one mentions the topic of research and not the person--mentioning the person makes it sound (trying to be) too personal.

 

Same thing I think works when people write papers. They detach the person from the ideas by citing the paper instead of saying, He/She did this or that

[polkaparty]

I remember some schools actually saying on their websites that you should mention names of professors in the SOP, anyone know which ones those are?

 

(Just kidding, of course Harvard has everything)

 

Hilarious.

[asianecon]

I know for a fact that this is true in the hard sciences, especially experimental ones where you join a professors' lab or research group. In fact you are sometimes expected to be in contact with a professor before hand. I doubt that this applies to economics

 

I remember some schools actually saying on their websites that you should mention names of professors in the SOP, anyone know which ones those are?

 

[polkaparty]

I meant econ dept. websites, not the general grad school sites. I may be mistaken in my memory, however.