Choose a writing sample that answers the brief

Read the writing sample request before choosing a document

First distinguish an existing sample from a new assignment. “Send an example of your previous writing” asks for evidence you can select. “Write an announcement using the attached brief” asks you to complete that task under its stated conditions. A link to your portfolio may not replace either requirement. Note the intended audience, genre, length, language, format, deadline and submission location. Mark anything genuinely missing rather than borrowing rules from another application.

Georgetown’s career guidance emphasizes following the request and identifying an excerpt. Its suggested lengths are guidance, not an instruction from your employer. If a missing detail would change your choice, ask one specific question through the stated contact route. Otherwise select a reasonable piece and make its context clear. Our complete-application guide helps you place this additional artifact alongside the other requested documents, without replacing the vacancy’s own instructions.

Georgetown: writing samples and supporting materials · Review the complete application package

Compare pieces by the work they let a reader assess

Shortlist a few documents before editing any of them. For each, write the reader, the purpose and the decision the text helps someone make. An academic essay might show sustained argument; a service notice might show economical instructions; a research summary might show how you distinguish evidence from uncertainty. Choose according to the task in this vacancy. Subject similarity alone is not enough if the genre, audience or quality makes the piece unhelpful.

Read a candidate piece from the reviewer’s starting point. Can someone unfamiliar with your course or workplace understand the question? Does the piece demonstrate organization, explanation or analysis without a long spoken introduction? Look for a complete chain from the reader’s need to the useful conclusion. Prefer a sound piece with a clear purpose over an elaborate artifact whose contribution you cannot explain. This is an editorial comparison, not a scoring formula that predicts an employer’s decision.

Make your contribution and the sharing boundary visible

Identify whether you wrote the whole piece, contributed a section, edited another person’s draft or worked within a supplied template. Those demonstrate different skills. Do not let a shared byline imply sole authorship, or call routine proofreading original research. When the request asks for individual writing, a heavily collaborative document may be a poor choice even if the finished result is excellent. Choose material that lets you state your role precisely without needing the reader to reconstruct the production process.

Miami University’s writing-sample guidance flags confidentiality in client work. For this selection task, leave out private records and material whose sharing status you cannot establish. Removing names is not a guarantee that a document is appropriate to send: the remaining detail may still expose information or make the text misleading. Select a different piece or an explicitly independent exercise when necessary. This guide does not determine contractual permissions, publication rights or professional obligations for your circumstances.

Miami University: crafting writing samples

Choose an excerpt with a beginning, a purpose and an ending

If the requested scope is shorter than your document, find a continuous section that carries a useful piece of reasoning or explanation. Do not simply take the first pages because they fit. A literature review may introduce a question without showing what you did with it. Equally, a conclusion can sound persuasive while hiding the evidence behind it. The selected boundary should allow someone to follow the work rather than admire isolated sentences.

Keep citations, qualifications and definitions needed to interpret the passage. If a cut removes the basis for a conclusion, choose a different boundary or add a short, clearly separate context note. Label the piece as an excerpt and explain any adaptation. Do not stitch unrelated paragraphs together while presenting them as an untouched continuous passage. An excerpt can be shorter than its source without becoming a different argument or suggesting that unfinished work was a published result.

Use a context note to orient the reader

A short note can name the title, original setting, intended audience, your contribution and any changes made for submission. Include only information that helps someone interpret the text. “Independent practice piece, revised for this application” is more informative than claiming it was created for a client when it was not. If a real publication or assignment exists, describe it accurately. Do not invent a commission, a grade or an outcome to give the writing extra authority.

Keep the note distinct from the sample itself. It should not become a second cover letter filled with claims about motivation. Explain what is excerpted, what you personally wrote and whether the piece has been shortened, translated or substantively revised. Follow specific instructions about assistance or editing rather than assuming that every employer permits the same process. For a link-based submission, the portfolio guide addresses access and destination checks; the context note still needs to accompany the relevant piece.

Make a portfolio destination understandable and accessible

Follow a fictional selection from three possible pieces

In this invented scenario, Noor Ellison applies to the fictional Reedbridge Cooperative for a public-information role. The request asks for one existing example of clear writing for a general audience, up to 600 words, in a PDF. Noor has a long seminar essay, a collaboratively edited newsletter and a 900-word independent practice guide about attending a community repair session. None is presented as evidence of a real vacancy or successful application.

Edit for clarity without disguising how the piece was made

Make a fresh copy for submission and keep the original identifiable. Correct distracting errors, check references and remove unnecessary complexity. Read the piece aloud to hear where a sentence asks the reader to hold too much information. Then ask what each revision changes: a clearer transition preserves the argument; a new conclusion may require new support. Do not add a result or finding merely because the edited version feels incomplete without one.

If substantial rewriting changes the document, describe it as a revised version rather than an untouched historical artifact. If the employer specifies unaided work, a timed exercise or disclosure of assistance, follow that instruction. Do not assume permission to substitute generated text or someone else’s editing for the ability being assessed. You should be able to explain the final wording, the evidence it uses and the choices you made, including the limits of your own contribution.

Inspect the file the reviewer will actually receive

Open the exported attachment, not just the editor. Check the title, context note, reading order, page breaks, citations and links. Remove visible comments and review any tracked changes before sending the intended version. Inspect document properties and other places where private information might remain, while recognizing that a visual check is not a guarantee of complete technical sanitization. If you cannot prepare a shareable copy confidently, use another piece rather than treating a hidden detail as someone else’s problem.

Use an identifiable filename and the requested upload field or delivery route. Check whether a cover note counts toward the employer’s limit, and ask if that matters and is unclear. Keep a record of the version sent so you can discuss it later. Do not rewrite that saved copy after submitting it. If you discover a material error, consider a clear correction through the legitimate contact route instead of silently replacing the file and assuming the reviewer will see the same version.