Showing posts with label johns hopkins. Show all posts
Showing posts with label johns hopkins. Show all posts
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Rejection #6
My Johns Hopkins rejection finally arrived yesterday in the mail. A nice, personalized letter with my full name printed on it, as well as (as far as I can tell) a signature by the Chairman in real ink. It may sound silly, but I found it a nice touch in what is often a very impersonal process. That leaves three schools (counting Purdue) I'm waiting to hear final word from. Then I can get down to the business of choosing the program where I'll spend the next two to three years of my life.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Got Motivation?
Damn you John Hopkins and your "different" Statement of Purpose. I'll be honest. It's been awfully hard for me to get up and writing this thing. The fact that John Hopkins' SOP asks for something so vastly different -- a critique of your work rather than a simple, "state your goals and dreams, blah blah blah" -- has severely complicated the enjoyment of my otherwise lazy and uneventful holiday break. My original SOP probably took me 10-15 hours to compose in its entirety, with about close to a dozen rewrites. But then, I was able to slot that SOP to 7-8 schools with only minor changes, and spent maybe a couple hours more heavily editing it for those remaining 2-3 schools. Easy. Minimum work (relatively speaking) for maximum coverage.
With John Hopkins? I could easily spend (and have probably already spent close to) the same amount of time writing my original SOP. The problem is it's for one school. Don't misunderstand -- I would love to go to John Hopkins, I would take that acceptance in a heartbeat if they gave it to me. But the reality is, I'm probably not going to go there. With an acceptance rate of under 5%, I have to be truthful with myself. We're talking about maximum work for minimum coverage.
Add in the fact that I've "come down" from my hard working high, applying to schools a couple weeks ago. A couple weeks ago, when I was in the thick of it, spending 2-4 hours a day checking and double checking each application, reading and rereading each story, making sure I had the right address on each envelope, it would've been easier. There was a kind of purpose in my single minded misery. I wouldn't have minded taking on one more thing back then. Nowadays, motivation is such a bitch. I wake up (or come back from work), stare at the SOP, and think, "I can do this tomorrow. I have so much time." Then I go watch a movie. Or play solitaire. Or read a book. Or write an entry for this blog. Anything but work on that stupid John Hopkins SOP.
With John Hopkins? I could easily spend (and have probably already spent close to) the same amount of time writing my original SOP. The problem is it's for one school. Don't misunderstand -- I would love to go to John Hopkins, I would take that acceptance in a heartbeat if they gave it to me. But the reality is, I'm probably not going to go there. With an acceptance rate of under 5%, I have to be truthful with myself. We're talking about maximum work for minimum coverage.
Add in the fact that I've "come down" from my hard working high, applying to schools a couple weeks ago. A couple weeks ago, when I was in the thick of it, spending 2-4 hours a day checking and double checking each application, reading and rereading each story, making sure I had the right address on each envelope, it would've been easier. There was a kind of purpose in my single minded misery. I wouldn't have minded taking on one more thing back then. Nowadays, motivation is such a bitch. I wake up (or come back from work), stare at the SOP, and think, "I can do this tomorrow. I have so much time." Then I go watch a movie. Or play solitaire. Or read a book. Or write an entry for this blog. Anything but work on that stupid John Hopkins SOP.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
John Hopkins Statement of Purpose
Ten of my thirteen applications are now in the bag and mailed off, with two of them (Roosevelt University and Columbia College) having due dates on February 2nd. So as of this post, I'm currently staring down John Hopkins as my last application to finish before I can start to relax again. The word "relax" used in this way is a relative term, of course, as I expect to be a nervous wreck waiting to hear back from schools over the next few months, but that's another post for another day.
So this is what John Hopkins wants in a Statement of Purpose, as requested from their website: "MFA applicants should include in their writing sample a two-page introduction and critique of their work. This statement should give admissions faculty a view to the scope and thoughtfulness of the work submitted and a sense of the student's ability to contribute in the writing workshops."
My first thought when reading this request: Weird. Possibly the weirdest hoop any school has asked me to jump through so far, and that's including the University of Michigan asking me to scan a copy of my undergraduate transcript and upload it to their online application. At first glance, though strange, John Hopkins' request to, in essence, "critique" your own writing seems simple enough, especially for those of us who've been in dedicated writing groups or have taken creative writing classes. I've probably done this same exercise for other people's stories a few dozen times, if not more. And I do pride myself in giving what I think is insightful and meaningful feedback. If nothing else, I always want writers who read my feedback to know I've actually taken the time to read and absorb their stories.
It sounds like an easy enough exercise, right? Maybe. What I've noticed in my half-assed attempts at critiquing my own pieces is that it's incredibly hard to tune out that little voice who questions every sentence I write. "Does that sound too arrogant?" "Is this analysis correct?" "Should I be more confident in my voice here?" First, I'm deathly afraid of sounding like amateur hour when writing anything theory-related when it comes to analysis in this context. Especially when dealing with a school with as much academic prestige as John Hopkins. Second, I've found that in contrast to writing critiques for other people, it's startlingly difficult to bluntly state criticism or praise as simple fact. To me, it feels like there's a strange sort of "presumptuousness" in doing so. The last thing I'd want is to make a number of assumptions about my story that would make the applications committee scratch their heads or disagree with.
I know I'm being ridiculous. Analysis and assumption is precisely what they're looking for. They want us to "give admissions faculty a view to the scope and thoughtfulness of the work submitted and a sense of the student's ability to contribute in the writing workshops." That sounds like a critique to me. To be anything other authoritative and an expert of your own story would be shortchanging yourself.
So this is what John Hopkins wants in a Statement of Purpose, as requested from their website: "MFA applicants should include in their writing sample a two-page introduction and critique of their work. This statement should give admissions faculty a view to the scope and thoughtfulness of the work submitted and a sense of the student's ability to contribute in the writing workshops."
My first thought when reading this request: Weird. Possibly the weirdest hoop any school has asked me to jump through so far, and that's including the University of Michigan asking me to scan a copy of my undergraduate transcript and upload it to their online application. At first glance, though strange, John Hopkins' request to, in essence, "critique" your own writing seems simple enough, especially for those of us who've been in dedicated writing groups or have taken creative writing classes. I've probably done this same exercise for other people's stories a few dozen times, if not more. And I do pride myself in giving what I think is insightful and meaningful feedback. If nothing else, I always want writers who read my feedback to know I've actually taken the time to read and absorb their stories.
It sounds like an easy enough exercise, right? Maybe. What I've noticed in my half-assed attempts at critiquing my own pieces is that it's incredibly hard to tune out that little voice who questions every sentence I write. "Does that sound too arrogant?" "Is this analysis correct?" "Should I be more confident in my voice here?" First, I'm deathly afraid of sounding like amateur hour when writing anything theory-related when it comes to analysis in this context. Especially when dealing with a school with as much academic prestige as John Hopkins. Second, I've found that in contrast to writing critiques for other people, it's startlingly difficult to bluntly state criticism or praise as simple fact. To me, it feels like there's a strange sort of "presumptuousness" in doing so. The last thing I'd want is to make a number of assumptions about my story that would make the applications committee scratch their heads or disagree with.
I know I'm being ridiculous. Analysis and assumption is precisely what they're looking for. They want us to "give admissions faculty a view to the scope and thoughtfulness of the work submitted and a sense of the student's ability to contribute in the writing workshops." That sounds like a critique to me. To be anything other authoritative and an expert of your own story would be shortchanging yourself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
