I am working on my SOP for Pol Sci PhD spots. All comments are more than welcome, but my general question is whether its too specific and too lacking in Amazing-Moments-In-My-Life stories.
My application to the Political Science program at University Z is based on the believe that I have something specific to add to the field of political science, both in the topic that I would study and in the methods that I would use, and that University Z would represent the best environment to bring this to fruition. Since my undergraduate and graduate history studies at University Y I have been interested in studying the historical development of American political systems and institutions. This is a relevant and important field of study because the nature of systems in a political system influence the outcomes of a political process and to understand how the process occurs we therefore need to know how the system functions. But a political system rarely remains stable after its moment of founding; rather, it changes and adapts in a variety of ways, and these historical developments become the foundations of the newer versions of this system. We can focus on the current incarnation of such a system alone, but by doing so we run the risk of failing to understand where specific aspects of this system come from, and how to successfully study or adept it. So, to fully understand the nature of a political system, we cannot just look at its current state of being: we must understand how it developed into what it is now and not doing so will lead to a failure of understanding the system.
A good example of such a failure of understanding, and what important consequences this has, is the work available on the system of presidential primary elections, a topic I have specialized in while at University Y and that I propose as the subject of my dissertation. While there is no lack of research in this area, the studies that are available suffer from a distinct flaw: political scientists writing on the topic tend to do so from the perspective of their own times and nearly always ignore the historical background of the system. With a history as complex as that of the primaries, with what I would argue are at least four distinct periods, this leads to a highly troublesome lack of understanding of where the peculiarities of the system come from, why they are the way they are and how they can be adapted. Those who could play a major role in disabusing this - namely historians - fail to do so, but for a different reason. While they too publish frequently on the topic, historic accounts generally fail to look at the political system at play and rather focus on personalities or events. This results in severe misunderstandings of how we should understand the campaigns and conventions described. For example, the earliest primaries (1912-1944) are generally discarded as irrelevant and their influence on the presidential selection of the era ignored, while the second period (1948-1972) is simply assumed to be comparable to later eras, and simplified to such an extent that all the important subtleties of this period are ignored.
The problem is clear: political scientists fail to look at the history of systems and thereby fail to fully understand the specifics of their subject, while historians fail to look at the nature of political systems and get their historical analyses of political events wrong. Since the road to the White House has since Lincoln gone solely through the Democratic and Republican parties, and since the primaries are currently the only route towards the nomination for either party, this represents a major problem in our understanding of presidential selection. The solution to this problem can only be a fully interdisciplinary approach of the two fields, one in which history is not background but part of the vital understanding of how the subject of choice came to be and one in which the political system itself is the focus of the study and not ignored. Using this method will help us to strictly define the different periods that make up the history of the primary system, define the origins of the different specifics aspects of this system and, once that information is clear, make more complete qualitative and quantitative judgments on the current and future state of the system.
While I am perfectly aware that University Z is exceptionally selective in allowing entry to its PhD programs, I also believe I can meet those requirements. Throughout my career in academics so far I have shown to be capable of achieving excellent results. During my undergraduate studies at University Y I was part of the BA Honors Program for promising students, and during my history graduate studies at University Y I was part of the highly selective Research MA program, from which I graduated cum laude in 2007. In 2008 I continued my graduate studies as a Fulbright scholar at the Politics Department of University X. Aside from Fulbright, I have been a recipient of several highly competitive scholarships. Aside from academics I have a broad array of work experiences ranging from managing the Airport A aircontrol tower in the summer of 2002, to my most recent position of Policy Analysis Fellow at Nonprofit B, an LGBT umbrella organization. I have also been active in grassroots campaign efforts for the Partij van de Arbeid (PvdA) in the Netherlands since 2005.
In conclusion. I believe I am qualified for admittance to the political science PhD program at University Z, I believe my proposed topic and method of research would mean an important addition to the field of political science and to our understanding of political institutions, and I am very excited at the prospect of working with University Z's excellent faculty. As such, I hope you will accept this application.
Okay, at the start you claim that you have something specific to contribute, and I get the impression that what you're referring to is an approach to pol. sci. that is guided by knowledge of systems theory and the history of the electoral system. I wish you would directly state this as your specific contribution somewhere in that first para. I hope to contribute enhanced perspective by...
This should be a semi-colon:
So, to fully understand the nature of a political system, we cannot just look at its current state of being; we must also understand...
This is excellent, right here: The problem is clear: political scientists fail to...
That is a great sentence, and it is a reason why many pol.sci. majors also study history. You are among many applicants who will combine these two subjects. I suggest sharpening this essay even more by discussing the roles you would like to play as a professional. The concepts in this essay are great, but they should be coupled with a description of your purpose that extends beyond college.
