Citing the work, not the profile page
Biotech applicant naming faculty for a thesis-based master's
I am eager to work under the guidance of your renowned faculty members, whose groundbreaking research in biotechnology aligns perfectly with my interests. The state-of-the-art laboratories and excellent research environment at your university make it the ideal place for my graduate studies.
Dr Menon's 2024 paper on phage display against gram-negative biofilms left one question open in its discussion section, whether the binding held at wound-site pH, and my final-year project on pH-stable peptide linkers is a plausible way in. I would also want to take Dr Okafor's protein engineering practicum, because my cloning experience is entirely plasmid-based and that is a gap for this work.
Why the second one works
- 01
The strong version engages with a specific paper's own stated open question, which proves the discussion section was actually read.
- 02
The applicant's project is offered as 'a plausible way in', a calibrated claim a supervisor can assess, not a boast.
- 03
Naming a second faculty member for a named skills gap shows the applicant has planned the degree, not just the admission.
- 04
The weak version's 'renowned faculty' names nobody and could be sent to forty universities. Committees assume it was.
- 05
Two names, both load-bearing. A list of five names as insurance would signal none of them was read closely.
Written in-house as an illustration. Not a real applicant’s statement, and not a template: a published paragraph is a paragraph a similarity checker has already seen.