Motivation letter rewrite: a before-and-after with the mistakes selectors name

The letter below is composed by the author of this site as a teaching example. It is not from a real applicant, and the person, employer and project in it are invented. For the process around the letter (references, deadlines, which awards accept Cameroonians) see how to ask for a reference and scholarships open to Cameroonians.

What one selector says went wrong

Chevening, the UK government scholarship, published feedback from its reading committees on 2 August 2023, after a cycle with more than 70,000 applications (Chevening, “Where did I go wrong”). The mistakes it lists are specific enough to check a draft against:

• Spelling errors.
• Describing team achievements with “we” and never saying what the applicant did.
• Bullet points instead of full sentences.
• Examples not structured as situation, task, action, result.
• Leadership examples from school or university rather than from work.
• Treating a job title as proof of leadership, without saying how influence was gained or what resulted.
• Defining leadership in the abstract with no example.
• Claiming networking skills without naming a single network or what came of using it.
• Discussing only one of three courses, or making broad claims about all three.
• Copying text from university websites, citing rankings as the main reason, or citing local attractions and football clubs.
• Ambition with no achievable plan.

Chevening’s criteria page adds a rule: using AI software to generate answers is “strictly prohibited”, Chevening uses tools to detect plagiarism and AI-generated text, and applying is free (Chevening application criteria). Chevening’s Cameroon page says the programme is closed (as quoted in search results; I could not open the page myself; see the scholarship status post), so I use it here only as the most explicit public list of what reviewers mark. The patterns carry to other programmes, but each programme asks different questions, so check its own instructions.

The weak letter (composed example)

Count the problems against the list above. “Always been passionate” and “hardworking” are claims. “Prestigious” and “top-ranked” are the ranking rationale. “Leader of a student group” is a title with no outcome. “We organised many health activities” is the “we” problem with no number. “Good networking skills” names no network. “Make a difference” is ambition with no plan. About 100 words, and not one checkable fact.

The rewrite (still composed, and illustrative)

Annotation, claim by claim

• “In 2024 I coordinated …” replaces “I have always been passionate”. Date, place, role and size appear in the first sentence, so a reader has something to check.
• “as treasurer … (twelve members)” fixes the title-as-proof problem: the role is small and stated honestly, and the evidence is what follows.
• “Our target was 900; … We reached 640” keeps the real outcome, including the shortfall. A result below target with a lesson reads as more credible than a perfect one.
• “I wrote … trained eight volunteers, tracked attendance” answers the “we” problem by naming three actions that belong to the applicant.
• “480 of them … next term I asked for slots in advance” gives a situation, an insight and a changed action. That is the situation-task-action-result pattern, without labelling it.
• The module sentence replaces “prestigious”. It names the specific feature and a skill gap.
• The plan gives a role, a time limit and a measurable target, in place of “make a difference”.
• The named referee links the letter to the reference, which lets the reader confirm it.

The rewrite is about 190 words against the original’s 100. It is not shorter. What it removes is vagueness, not length.

Format differs by programme

The same letter does not fit every selector. What I could verify:

Fulbright Foreign Student Program, Cameroon. The listing for the 2026-27 call asks for two separate essays, a personal statement and a study objectives statement, alongside three recommendation letters and a CV (Opportunity Desk). It is a third-party listing of the 2025 cycle, so use the current instructions. Two documents means two jobs: the first says who you are, the second says what you will study and why there.

DAAD (Germany). Guides to the DAAD letter of motivation suggest one to two pages (guides differ; check the DAAD call). For EPOS (development-related postgraduate courses), a copy of the EPOS FAQ hosted outside DAAD says a candidate applying to more than one course (up to three) submits one letter explaining the choice and the priority. The DAAD site refused my connection during this check, so confirm these rules in your call for applications.

Erasmus Mundus Joint Masters. The European Commission page says applications go directly to the programme and that requirements are set per programme (Erasmus+). A letter written for one consortium usually needs rewriting for another; do not submit the same text to both.

Chevening. Four assessment areas: leadership and influencing, professional relationships, course and university choice, and career plan, with three course choices in play and a preference for first-choice detail (criteria page). I could not verify the current word limit from an official page.

A checklist you can run on your own draft

1. Highlight every sentence with a number, a date or a name. If fewer than half are highlighted, the letter is mostly claims.
2. Circle every “we”. Next to each, write what you did.
3. Find the sentence that explains why this course at this place. Would it be false for a different university? If not, rewrite it.
4. Find the plan. Does it have a role, a date and a measure?
5. Read it aloud. Cut every adjective you cannot support with evidence.
6. Run your spellcheck, then ask one other person to read for sense.
7. Write it yourself. Chevening is explicit that AI-generated answers are prohibited and that detection tools are used; other programmes may be as strict or stricter, so read each rule.