How Should I Structure My Fellowship Application Essays?

  • Thread starter Thread starter splitringtail
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on writing two essays for a fellowship application, focusing on previous research and proposed future research. The writer is uncertain about the appropriate format, contrasting their experience with traditional argumentative essays typically encountered in college. They express a need for clarity on how to effectively summarize their research experience and articulate their future research plans within a two-page limit. Key points of consideration include detailing past research, technical and soft skills acquired, motivations for research, and the ability to define a research direction. The essays are intended for a fellowship review board, which seeks evidence of the applicant's capability to conduct research, demonstrated through past work and a well-justified proposal for future research. The writer contemplates whether to adopt a personal statement style or a more structured argumentative approach, ultimately recognizing the importance of presenting a cohesive narrative that connects past experiences to future goals.
splitringtail
Messages
49
Reaction score
0
I need to write an two essays on:

Describe all my previous research.

The research I purpose to do during the fellowship.

They need to be no more than two pages and single spaced.

Yet, I am not sure on the format. I am very use to essays where you make an argument (a thesis) and then you support it with key details. This is the type of essay you see in college coursework. I am not sure I can formulate my experience into a 1-2 statements. Descriptive essays from what I did in high school are a totally different beast. For the other second essay, I was thinking of a pseudo-proposal format, since fellowship or not I still have to do this work to get my PhD.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If it helps, likely what the committee reading these essays wants to know is:
- what research have you done to this point in your career
- what technical skills have you taken from the process
- what other skills have you learned (for example, establishing realistic timelines, collaboration, writing skills, etc.)
- what motivates you to engage in research
- do you have the potential to independently define a research project or direction
 
I get what your saying, but I am just not sure on the structure. Is it like personal statement kinda step up or is it like a augmentative exposition. Like I start with an introduction leading into a claim like vending machines cause childhood obesity, then support in the body of essay.

Not sure if it is appropriate style if I am trying to describe the research I have done before. Most of it was undergraduate and it didn't work out all to well.
 
Who are these essays for? An admission committee? Search committee? Job interview? Grant application?
 
Funding from a fellowship.
 
Most likely, the review board for the fellowship wants you to demonstrate that you are able to perform the work. Evidence for this is a track record of publications/presentations/documentation of previous work (essay 1), justification of the proposed work, and how your previous experience translates into successfully carrying out the proposed work (essay 2).

If it helps to think in terms of an argument (i.e. claim and evidence), then by all means do so.
 
TL;DR Summary: I want to do a PhD in applied math but I hate group theory, is this a big problem? Hello, I am a second-year math and physics double major with a minor in data science. I just finished group theory (today actually), and it was my least favorite class in all of university so far. It doesn't interest me, and I am also very bad at it compared to other math courses I have done. The other courses I have done are calculus I-III, ODEs, Linear Algebra, and Prob/Stats. Is it a...
I’ve been looking through the curricula of several European theoretical/mathematical physics MSc programs (ETH, Oxford, Cambridge, LMU, ENS Paris, etc), and I’m struck by how little emphasis they place on advanced fundamental courses. Nearly everything seems to be research-adjacent: string theory, quantum field theory, quantum optics, cosmology, soft matter physics, black hole radiation, etc. What I don’t see are the kinds of “second-pass fundamentals” I was hoping for, things like...

Similar threads

Back
Top