For WP3, I found group 1’s schema to be most useful as a checklist. I walked through their example document and replaced the contents of each element with corresponding information specific to my background and goals. I found this schema to fit very well regarding personal background; however, there were areas with which it fell short. I believe a section regarding how a person views the field could be beneficial. For example, why I believe solar is important or why someone else believes the world needs computer scientists. A lot can be inferred from the things people put the most importance on in life.
The experience section of the schema was very well laid out. Between, “personal”, “work”, and “school”, one could supply information on any part of their life. I expect some people may argue that the personal section can be broken down further, as I initially thought, but I would now argue that it is not necessary and that the three existing sections are specific enough to fit most cover letters.
After reading Sam’s cover letter to SOM, I was able to see how to more smoothly depict the relationship between my background, long term goals, and how working at the proposed company would eventually play into that.
Using another group’s schema was not too different from using my own. When using a schema that I helped to put together, I had unique insight into certain elements regardless of their definition. I can see how in a complex schema with similar, more specific elements, one may find advantages to having provided input into the schema construction, however, the cover letter elements are very well laid out and clearly defined to the point where I do not notice any hindrances associated with not having helped design this schema.
In order to revise this genre model, I may want to bring up the topic of field importance. The ability to show passion and a drive for your work stems from seeing the importance of the work the company does as a whole.
