Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 13Doctoral Education Challenges and SolutionsMedical Education and AdmissionsHigher Education Governance and Development

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 27 of the 27 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

‘It’s a match, but is it a good fit?’: admissions tutors’ evaluation of personal statements for PhD study

Chiu, Yuan-Li Tiffany·2019·Oxford Review of Education
DOI 10.1080/03054985.2018.1502168
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This article investigates academics’ expectations and interpretations of the personal statement and its associated evaluation practice in the context of postgraduate school admissions. The analysis was based on semi-structured interviews with 10 experienced academics in doctoral applications evaluation at a US university. Data were thematically coded and analysed using the notion of discourse and power to identify a set of representations of ideas that academics draw on for the purpose of evaluating the personal statement. The findings suggest that academics’ evaluations have been rooted in their understanding of the nature of PhD study, the current situation in the programme, and the structure of the admissions process in a particular academic discourse community. The discourses of ‘match’ and ‘fit’ emerged as being important to the academics’ evaluation practice. This paper argues that the admissions discourses of ‘match’ and ‘fit’ have perplexed the evaluation process in that the ‘match’ appears to be associated with a more explicit and standardised list of requirements whereas the ‘fit’ emphasises more fluid and contingent programme priorities. There is a need for future research to determine the relevance and applicability of ‘match’ and ‘fit’ to further our understanding of the complexities of the admission process across contexts.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/03054985.2018.1502168

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 27 references

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Barton E., 2004, Issues in Writing, 15, 76
  2. Barton E., 2004, Issues in Writing, 15, 5
  3. Bekins L. K., 2004, Issues in Writing, 15, 56
  4. Cotton F., 2004, Directions for the future: Issues in English for academic purposes, 91
  5. Killgore, L. M. (2004).Beyond the merit of test scores: Gatekeeping in elite college admissions. Doctoral dissertation. USA: Brown University.
  6. Paré A., 2014, Journal of Academic Language & Learning, 8, A83

Cited by

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Chiu, Y.-L. T.
Affiliations
Imperial College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Chiu, Yuan-Li Tiffany
ORCID
Chiu, Yuan-Li Tiffany
Venue
Oxford Review of Education
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2018-08-22
Volume
45
Issue
1
Pages
136-150
ISSN
  • 0305-4985 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-3915
DOI
10.1080/03054985.2018.1502168
OpenAlex
W2888400021
Semantic Scholar
cfb01434210f994a1cfe88ac887cf48a0b9293a3
Cited by
13
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1
FWCI
1.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Oxford Review of Education (publishedVersion)
  • Spiral (Imperial College London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Doctoral Education Challenges and Solutions
  • Social Sciences › Education › Medical Education and Admissions
  • Social Sciences › Education › Higher Education Governance and Development
Keywords
personal statements, PhD admission, assessment practices, academic discourse, postgraduate admission, academic power

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.