PhD Admissions in the US: Information Sought on the Season Concluding

A student who was unsuccessful in his applications to PhD programs writes:

Would members of admissions committees be willing to share any information about the admissions process for their philosophy programs?  For example, it would be helpful to know how many applicants and admitted students a given program had; whether they use GPA and GRE scores as an initial screen, and what numbers would pass that screen; whether they favor or disfavor applicants with other graduate degrees, such as an M.A. in philosophy or a law degree; whether they prefer applicants right out of undergrad or with work or other experience; or any other information they think might be helpful to applicants who are deciding where to apply.

I ask because I applied to 9 programs for 2007 and was denied admission to all of them, and I gather from various message boards, such as gradstudent.cafe and Who Got In? Philosophy, that many other students were shut out this year and that several successful applicants were applying again after being shut out last year.  If I had known just how selective some of the programs I applied to were, I would have applied more cautiously. Just to give a few examples, I understand that Rutgers had 284 applicants for 7 places, Cornell had 240 for 6, and Toronto had 400 for 14.  I've learned that I overreached this year, but I still don't know which programs are reasonably within my reach.  If visitors to your blog could shed some light on how selective their schools are and/or what they want and don't want in applicants, it would be very helpful to me and other would-be grad students.

I would greatly appreciate your posting this, as I've seen such questions generate many illuminating comments in the past.  Being shut out for a year is a tough way to learn that you and/or your advisers have an unreasonably lofty notion of your admissibility, and I think that making more information available about the harsh realities of the admissions process might spare others from suffering the same fate.

Non-anonymous posts only, and please post only once.  Comments should appear within about 24 hours, usually sooner.

Comments

[Thom Brooks]

One piece of advice I might offer this student is to possibly consider moving to the UK. Philosophy programmes continue to accept applications this time of year and, in addition, the timescale to completion is shorter at 3-4 years. I am an American who left the US to pursue a PhD in Philosophy in the UK. I recommend others strongly consider doing the same.

[Michael Shaffer]

Sometimes this is the result of bad advising. One of your best sources of information about which programs are within reach should be the faculty of your B.A. or M.A. program, especailly the younger faculty who may be more aware of the current situation with respect to various schools. I generally advise students to pick say 4 top programs (ranked say 1-20), about 6 or 7 mid-ranked programs (ranked say 21-45) and something like 4 or more safe bets (ranked 45 or lower or terminal M.A. programs). This can get expensive, but it is far less costly than not getting in and having to do it all over the following year.

[Richard Moore]

I don't want to respond to the above post directly, but just to tell the above student not to be despondent and not to give up. Applicants I've known in the past have often been surprised by how badly they did in the first round of PhD applications they made. However, when applying for a second time a year later, they tended to do much better - even when applying to institutions of the same standard.

Two examples:

I was rejected from all of my PhD applications (to Oxford and two at the Universiteit van Amsterdam) the first time I applied. The following year, I had several offers - including Oxford and Warwick, where I am now.

A Canadian friend of mine made and was rejected from a dozen places first time round. Last year she got offers from NYU and Toronto, in addition to a full scholarship from Cambridge.

In both cases, the applications weren't substantially different.

I tend to think two conclusions can be drawn from this: (1) there is some degree of arbitrariness in the application process (perhaps reflecting the fact that field strength will vary from year to year, but also the personal preferences of changing admissions tutors); and (2) a year of refining a proposal makes a big difference.

Better luck next year!

[Fritz McDonald]

For what it is worth, there is some information on how selective programs are at the APA Guide to Graduate Programs here:

http://www.apaonline.org/publications/gradguide

The information is from 2001-02, so it is fairly out of date. For each program, under the menu option "Program Admission Data," it shows how many applications programs received then, and how many students were accepted. It might help prospective graduate students if the APA asks for more information the next time it takes such a survey.

[Richard Zach]

The APA Guide is from 03/04--not terribly new, but a little less out of date than Fritz suggested.

[Daniel Groll]

For what it's worth, here is a link to a description of the admissions process in the philosophy department at the University of Chicago, which seems to answer some of the student's more basic questions (the role of GREs, GPAs, grades etc.). I don't know for certain, but I suspect this is a decent reflection of admissions at similar institutions.

http://philosophy.uchicago.edu/graduate/admissions.shtml#application

[Fritz McDonald]

Richard Zach is right, the Guide was prepared in 04. I jumped to the conclusion that all the admissions data was from 01/02 by looking at some specific schools. Some of the information is from 2004 (see NYU, for instance), but some of the information is even older. For instance, the admissions data from my alma mater, the CUNY Graduate Center, is from 02/03. If you look at some other schools, the information is even more out of date than I suggested--the data from Rutgers in the APA report is from 99/00, and the data from Cornell is from 98/99.

[Ben Ricker]

After reading over the U of Chicago page, I noticed this little blurb:

"A masters degree is relevant only insofar as it sheds light on these {ability to do graduate work in philosophy]. (Work done in masters programs elsewhere is not counted toward satisfying program requirements here.)"

The striking notion is that the masters work is NOT accepted as satisfying program requirements? I am working on a Masters at a top Master's program, mainly due to liking the program. But I will definitely be disappointed, if and when I apply to a PH.D program, that I have to start over.

How prevalent is this practice of not accepting Master's credit? I would think one would start a PH. D program as a third year student, but this does not seem to be the case at U of Chicago, at least.

[John Schwenkler]

In response to Ben Ricker's question, I take it that this is a common enough practice. Case in point: I was enrolled in Notre Dame's Ph.D. program for two years and took some sixteen graduate courses for credit before "transferring" to Berkeley and was let out of only one course requirement. That said, if I had gone to Brown instead they were willing to let me out of several more courses (I don't remember exactly how many, but I'm sure it wasn't sixteen!). The idea, though, is that a graduate degree from a department should be largely the product of coursework done at that particular department -- with this rationale in mind, I've found Berkeley's policy to be pretty reasonable.

[Brian]

My impression is that Chicago is at the extreme end with regard to transfer credit. Most schools that I am familiar with will awared some credit for graduate work done elsewhere, though I'm not aware of any that will treat a student as a 3rd-year PhD student based on two years of MA work--one year worth of credit for work done elsewhere seems to be the maximum. Getting too much credit is also not necessarily a good thing. You want faculty in your PhD program to know you well, and in various settings, before they have to write you letters of recommendation.

[Richard Moore]

In response to Ben Ricker's comment, and to the follow-ups, my experience was that previous MA work would not count (much) towards fulfilling PhD requirements. When I made my second round of applications, I had already completed two years of Master's Research at Universiteit van Amsterdam. Northwestern were very explicit that I would have to complete two years of taught courses before starting work on my thesis. My impression was that the same was true at Berkeley.

I didn't apply to Princeton but was reliably informed that they would happily release someone in my position from one year of taught coursework, but that this was not a common practice.

It's worth adding that (almost?) all PhD courses in the UK are happy to accept students who have undertaken Master's work elsewhere, and that students in this position will be expected to undertake few, if any, coursework requirements before starting their research.

[peter kirwan]

I found the following advice very useful (and up to date). Its written by a proffessor on UC Riverside's admissions committee

If the link doesn't work just do a search for his blog the splintered mind ... its in there.

[Errol Lord]

Here is that Splintered Mind post: http://schwitzsplinters.blogspot.com/2007/01/philosophy-grad-school-applications.html

John Basl's blog is also helpful: http://www.philblogs.com/users/philblogs/philblogs/normalscience/

[Thom Brooks]

Following Richard's remarks, it is the case that UK programmes often don't require a MA prior to applying for a PhD (although they would then require one year of coursework, often with examination). Potential students judged to have completed a "research" degree (such as a M.Phil. or possibly two M.A.'s) will often have the one year of coursework waved. When I started my Ph.D., I started writing my Ph.D. with no coursework or exams. It was perfect: I was doing the work I wanted to do right from the start.

Again, I highly recommend others to give the UK serious consideration.

[Bihui Li]

Thom:

Isn't funding in the UK hard to come by for non-EU students?

[Carl]

Thom and Richard, I'm curious: I always got the impression that British schools only funded students from the UK, EU, and Commonwealth. No TAships, and scholarships based on student's nationality. So wouldn't an American have to get a Rhodes/Gates or pay his own way? Also, do schools in Scotland and Ireland differ at all in this regard? Or am I wrong?

[Bihui Li]

Carl:

From the research I've done so far, there are several awards that anyone can get. There are the Overseas Research Awards (http://www.orsas.ac.uk/), which reduce non-EU fees to EU fees. The richer universities also have a few of their own scholarships, open to all nationalities (e.g. Oxbridge's college-based scholarships). So you don't have to get a Rhodes or Gates scholarship. However, my impression is that it's not easy to get an ORSAS or any of the few university-based scholarships.

I don't think Commonwealth students have much of an advantage either: many of the Commonwealth scholarships have clauses such as having to study a subject that contributes to the development of one's home country.

[S. L. Chao]

Not really. I'm a Taiwanese student and fully funded by University College, London. I must say, though, that it's much harder to get fully funded in the UK than in the US (I had studied in the US as a fully funded PhD student before transferring to UCL). For example, every year UCL's Graduate School offers only some 20 MPhil/PhD students research scholarships (UK/EU fees plus maintance £14,300 per annum). Non UK/EU students also have to compete for the Overseas Research Students (ORS) Awards, which cover the tuition fees of the overseas rate. A fantastic thing, however, is that, unlike in the US, PhD students, once fully funded, don't have to work at TAs at all for their universities for their universities.

[David Slakter]

As far as funding goes, many UK schools offer Overseas Research Student Award Scheme (ORSAS) scholarships for which American students are eligible. While TAships are less common here and often pay far less than their American counterparts, one can often find additional work teaching for the university's Continuing Education unit. There's also the occasional fellowship to look out for, and if you're willing to incur the debt, it's possible to get student loans through the FAFSA to study at a number of UK institutions.

[Richard Moore]

Carl and others:

Since I'm English, I'm not in as good a position to answer this question as either Thom or as some of those who have already posted, but as I understand it funding is harder to come by for non-UK and certainly non-EU students. According to the AHRC website (www.ahrc.ac.uk) full funding can be awarded to EU students who have been in full-time education in the UK for three years prior to their course start date; a fees only award can be made to those who have lived in the EU for three years prior to that date.

This suggests (although it isn't explicit) that anyone coming straight from the States to take up a PhD position won't be eligible for any AHRC award.

Unlike US departments, funding in the UK is centralised; departments don't fund their own students. Having said that, most universities do offer their own awards, at least some of which are open to non-EU nationals. Like the UCL note above, Warwick also offers about 20 such places per year. Obviously these are very competitive, but Warwick philosophy has a good track record of securing students on these scholarships.

It's not uncommon for students at UK universities to pay their own way through a PhD, but obviously this is very difficult and a last resort.

[John Waterman]

There are (a few) other funding options for study in the UK. I worked in London for two years before returning to the US to work on my Ph.D. There is a Mind Association foreign student scholarship for non EU students that covers full tuition and maintanance for three years of research. The student has to have completed an MA at the college first (so you'd have to pay for one year at lest), and be selected by that college to compete (each college in the UK can foward an applicant). It is selective, but a nice option...although I think all this is now far afield from what the questioner was originally asking about. As a lowely student, I can't offer any information about admissions. I would say, however, that my two years in England were wonderful from a personal and philosophical standpoint; it is a route I followed after being shut out my first time, and I think it is something to think about...it is especially worth considering because from an admissions standpoint it is less demanding than the US, or at least so I was told...and then there is the beer, which is really very nice warm once you're used to it.

[Mark Engleson]

To the shut out applicant, I can say that at mid-ranked institutions, the numbers don't improve all that much in your favor. At my institution (Maryland, 27), I was one of 5 funded PhD students out of 170 applicants. This year we have the same number of slots and a slight dip in applications to 150. Those numbers are better than 240 or 280, but still low. Programs are small and competitive. I've been through this twice, and was once admitted to Texas and once to Maryland, and each time, that was the only program I got into.

For what its worth, I am extremely happy where I am, and don't think I'd be at all happier at a higher-ranked program.

[naiserie]

I appreciate all of the comments so far, but as a prospective applicant myself, would appreciate more direct answers to the original question...if anyone with the requisite insight would care to share the answers, it would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.

[Thom Brooks]

In response to some of the above queries, it is true that non-EU students can't apply for AHRC funding (given my understanding). Instead, you can apply for the Overseas Research Scheme (ORS). It is true that this pays only half your fees, leaving students to pay the fees of any 'normal' EU student. However, virtually every university I know of will cover these for you. Thus, when you win an ORS, you effectively study for free.

Additional funding is quite tight as everyone has noticed. However, it is the case that some departments/schools are being empowered to award fuly funded studentships---it is the case in Newcastle, for instance.

All that said, it is worth noting that even if not funded the fees are in the region of about £8000 (roughly $15,500) for wherever you study per year...and only for three or four years. I think that the opportunity to immediately do the work you want to do, focussing on your project as soon as you walk in the door, one of many tremendous advantages of the UK system.

In any event, the original query was about advice on getting into top programmes. In the UK, GRE scores are not looked at. In my department (Politics), we would demand students have a 3.00 gpa or higher/2:1 or 1st. Whether or not someone is admitted will then depend on the availability of a suitable supervisor. The statements from students on their prospective projects is therefore of great importance. I would recommend (perhaps in all cases) that students contact a potential supervisor ahead of time to discuss their projects.

[Paul]

In response to Mark Engleson: I would conjecture (though I don't really know) that although two schools might have a similar "funded position"-to-application ratio, one school may go deeper into their waiting lists than the other (or, simply admit more students on the presumption that many of the top admits will matriculate elsewhere).

[Alastair Norcross]

In response to Thom's enthusiasm for Americans studying in the UK, I would like to raise a counterpoint (or two). As a Brit who chose to pursue graduate study in the US (Syracuse, a long time ago), I did so for two main reasons, the availability and extent of funding, and the coursework requirements.

I was fully funded throughout my graduate career, and managed not to accumulate any debt (cheap beer and pasta). I would strongly recommend against anyone pursuing graduate work in philosophy if they have to incur any significant amount of debt to do so. You should expect both tuition remission and a living stipend. The job prospects and pay in philosophy render going into debt to get a Ph.D simply irrational.

As for the coursework requirements, I would say they are beneficial both to your philosophical development and to your job prospects. I have been on many hiring committees at which a worry over the breadth of philosophical knowledge, and thus range of teaching abilities, has been raised concerning applicants with UK Ph.D's (this worry didn't apply to those who also had a master's-level degree in philosophy, such as an Oxford B.Phil).

I understand the eagerness to get started on a thesis (although I had no idea what I wanted to write on when I arrived at Syracuse), but I would say that a minimum of two years coursework beyond the BA, and preferably more, is required to prepare you to teach an acceptable range of courses. Most job candidates will not be fortunate enough to land a job at ANU, or at a top research institution that will be happy for them to teach only what they have written about.

[Alastair Norcross]

In response to the original question, I can give a little information about both Rice (where I am now) and Colorado (where I will be starting this Fall). Rice had about 90 applications this year for 5 slots (full funding for 5 years). My impression (I was on the admissions committee this year) was that the applicant pool was very strong. The single most important factor in an application for Rice is the quality of writing sample (every sample gets read by at least two faculty members), followed by letters of recommendation. GRE scores and undergraduate GPA are much less important, and more likely to rule someone out (for very low scores) than get someone in. I know much less about the situation at Colorado (ask me this time next year), but can report that there were over 200 applications this year. I don't know how many slots these are for.

[David Hilbert]

Because yields (enrolled graduate students/admitted applicants) are less than one and sometimes much less than one, comparing the size of the entering class to the number of applicants underestimates the admission rate. I can say from personal experience that there are programs with yields less than .5 who consequently will have admitted more than twice as many applicants as they enroll. The numbers are still scary but they many not be as scary as some of the comments suggest.

At my (lower half of the Leiter 50) program the two most important factors in the admissions decision are the letters and the writing sample. The overall undergraduate GPA is largely ignored but grades in upper-level philosophy courses need to be good (mostly As). Individual admissions committee members differ in their attitude towards the GREs but a common practice is to use the GREs as a screening tool and then ignore them in final decision making. Low GREs are not an absolute bar to admission but they can hurt.

The personal statement usually plays no role, because most are wholly uninformative, but a well-written statement of interest in an area that we can't cover will hurt. On the other side the common practice of plugging in names of department members in an otherwise generic personal statement doesn't really help.

I think the advice about reapplying is quite sound. Evaluating applicant files is very, very, far from a science and even the same committee could reach a different decision in a different year. Adding in the often substantial turnover in committee membership from year to year and the likelihood of the same application drawing a different decision becomes significant. Having said that it is worth looking over your application package and considering whether the parts under your control are as strong as they could be. I've had students, without consulting anyone, make very poor choices of writing sample. If there is a faculty member you can trust who will give you feedback on your application that would be time well-spent and could make a difference.

[Dennis Millarker]

At the risk of stating the obvious, I'll add this advice:

If you're lucky enough to already know what you'd like to do for an area of specialization, it's well-worth looking at the specific rankings for that area and related areas. Some lower-ranked schools offer top-notch training in one or two particular areas, and presumably the lower overall ranking at least thins the applicant pool, if not the standards for admission. Of course, you run the risk of the very faculty you came to work with leaving the institution for greener pastures before you've completed your course of study.

Alternatively, you might, as a last resort, try looking at a terminal MA program with at least a couple of bright, well-connected faculty. If you can impress them during your period of study, they're likely to write you some very good letters that might get you into a good doctoral program. However, this is a risky strategy, since if you're not fantastically talented you may not meet the higher standards applied (consciously or otherwise) by admissions committees to applicants with an MA from another institution. Not that such higher expectations are unreasonable: a philosopher with two years of graduate coursework ought to be doing better than a student with only a BA. But still, before pursuing a risky plan like this, it's wise to take a serious, critical look at yourself, and seek honest feedback from mentor about their estimation of your abilities.

[Jim Sias]

"Alternatively, you might, as a last resort, try looking at a terminal MA program . . ."

It's not clear to me that a terminal MA program is "a last resort." In a solid terminal MA program, you're more likely to be surrounded by philosophers that are known and respected by a greater number of other professional philosophers than there probably were at your institution of undergraduate study. And so there's a greater opportunity to have three very impressive letters. Also, the two or three years you spend in an MA program affords you the opportunity to gain a greater understanding of (a) your research interests and (b) the literature *about* your research interests. You'll also have more people reading and commenting on your work, which is likely to make you a better writer. And of course, many terminal MA programs offer decent funding packages.

"However, this is a risky strategy, since if you're not fantastically talented you may not meet the higher standards applied (consciously or otherwise) by admissions committees to applicants with an MA from another institution."

But if this is the case, you probably wouldn't have been able to hack it in a Ph.D. program to begin with.

[Margaret Atherton]

As someone teaching in a department with an MA program, I found Dennis Millarker's view that seeking an MA is a last resort strategy somewhat alarming. I do think that if you look at placement record for good MA programs, you might get a better sense of what can be accomplished via this strategy. But I was equally unnerved by the claim that applicants with MAs are judged at a higher standard than applicants with BAs. Although I have anecdotal hunches about this matter, I would like to hear whether others at PHD programs agree that they use higher standards in judging the credentials of students with MAs.

[Brian]

1. I want to concur with the preceding comments that MA programs are certainly not "last resorts"; indeed, for many students, they should be the first resort, and many, many students are very well-served by the better MA programs.

2. In the years I've done PhD admissions here, I have not held MA students to a higher standard. The big advantage for MA students is that there is just more (and often more reliable) evidence about their philosophical potential than for many BA students--in temrs of their written work, additional grades in philosophy courses, well-informed letters of recommendation, etc.

[Paul]

I graduated from a terminal MA program (UW-Milwaukee) before moving on to a PhD program. Presumably when someone calls a terminal masters program a "last resort", this means that ANY PhD program should be chosen above it. If that is what is being implied, then it is clearly wrong. Investing two years in an MA program in order to increase your odds of attending a PhD program of your choosing seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do. And it's not as if the time is wasted. Students in an MA program are honing skills that will eventually be of value in the PhD program. I tend to think that more students should consider terminal MA programs, rather than viewing them as a last resort.

[Carl Seaquist]

I'll add a comment here rather than under the new thread, since this is responding to the direction this thread has taken. I think the interest in "where can I get in" is a little misguided (though understandable, because getting into a PhD program is a necessary first step to becoming an academic). Knowing where you really want to go should be the starting point.

Most undergrads I talk to don't know what they want to study, and an awful lot of grad students end up either studying something that doesn't interest them, because their faculty in that field are well-known; or they study a subfield that their department isn't strong in. People in the first category rarely graduate, and they have painful graduate experiences. People in the latter category have trouble on the job market.

An MA program is a great place to start reading in a subfield you're interested in, figure out the questions and approaches you like, and find people you think you can work with. I'd say it's much more important to find work you can, and want to, complete at a less ranked program than to go for the "best" program you can get into. If admissions to your ideal program are easier, then all the better.

A lot of undergrads are sceptical of the advice to start with a terminal MA, but it's really a great move for a lot of people.

[Anon]

I am curious about the conflicting advice (which I have often received) of NOT taking out student loans to pay for a PhD in philosophy, and of considering a terminal MA program. Do admissions committees take into account the fact that many of us cannot afford a terminal MA program which, in cases like Tufts, incur costs (tuition fees plus living expenses for two full years in the Cambridge Somerville area) that are upwards of $75,000 total?

responses very much appreciated. it is frustrating to hear advice to do something one is strongly advised not to do.

[Alastair Norcross]

In response to anon's question above, my advice is still not to take out loans to pay for graduate school. A terminal MA is a good idea for many, but only if it offers funding. Most terminal MA programs that I am familiar with do offer funding on the same model as Ph.D programs (tuition remission plus a stipend for graduate/teaching assistantships). Although Tufts is a great program, it's definitely not worth going $75,000 into debt to pay for! If Tufts doesn't offer funding, go to another great MA program (UW Milwaukee, Northern Illinois, U Houston, Texas Tech, Georgia State, Western Michigan, etc.) We're not talking law school or medical school. $75,000 debt before you even start a Ph.D program is insane.

[Dennis Millarker]

I seem to have struck a hornet's nest with my post. To assauge anyone's concerns, I did not mean to indicate that any Ph.D program is a better choice than any MA program, though I take responsibility for the misunderstanding. Of course, that position would be deeply flawed, and attending a solid MA program such as Tufts or UW-Milwaukee is preferable to just about any unranked Ph.D program, and probably better than many ranked Ph.D programs in particular areas.

My aim in that paragraph was only to offer advice based on the experience of my few friends who have applied out to Ph.D departments after receving an MA from another institution. Some have been successful, and others not. However, there is certainly a general feeling among my peers that students with an MA are punting for a different goal-post when applying out to Ph.D programs. I am surprised to hear some people involved in admissions committees deny it, though, and they are in a better position than I to analyze their selection criteria. I would be very interested to see the results of a genuine empirical study comparing the admission rates of applicants with a BA to that of comparable applicants with an MA.

And, in response to Jim Sias, it's certainly not true that every student from a terminal MA program who fails to be admitted to a Ph.D program could not handle the work of a Ph.D program.

[Jim Sias]

Dennis,

"And, in response to Jim Sias, it's certainly not true that every student from a terminal MA program who fails to be admitted to a Ph.D program could not handle the work of a Ph.D program."

That's not what I said; at least, that's not what I thought I was saying. As I understand things, MA programs are meant to resemble the first couple years of work in a PhD program -- lots of coursework while you get your feet wet and establish some relatively well-defined research interests. So, if a person decided to go to an MA program in order to improve their chances of success when finally applying out to PhD programs, but performed poorly enough to have no positive effect whatsoever on their actual application, then there's reason to wonder how well they'd perform in a PhD program . . . since, again, the MA program is so similar to the first few years of work in a PhD program.

Maybe the confusion here is that, contrary to what you've said, I've never been under the impression that PhD admissions committees hold applicants with an MA to any sort of higher academic standard in the first place.