PhD Admissions (Again): Info Sought on the Season Just Concluded

The original thread was derailed into a slightly different (though informative) discussion, so I'm trying again on the original topic:

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

[Matt]

Could someone post links to the aforementioned websites?

"gradstudent.cafe" and "Who Got In? Philosophy"?

As a Junior philosophy major, I'm already planning on a career flipping burgers. Although I had no delusions from the beginning, upon looking at a few brochures for philosophy departments sent to me when I applied years ago, I find it humorous that all of them expound on how "career worthy" you'll be for X jobs/careers. They make it sound like you'll be a rich finance major.

Please.

*shrug*

[Alastair Norcross]

I'll add to the information I gave in the other thread. At Rice GPA and GRE scores do function as an initial screen, but they have to be pretty low to screen you out. For example, a verbal or math below 500 would ring serious warning bells. GPA in philosophy classes is more important than overall GPA, and anything below 3.0 would probably rule you out. When I am on the admissions committee (at Rice everyone does admissions at least every other year) I do prefer candidates with another graduate degree, usually an MA in philosophy. That is because Rice's coursework requirement is pretty light (14 courses over 2 years), and, in my view, barely adequate when not combined with more graduate coursework in philosophy to prepare candidates to teach an attractive range of courses. However, I am leaving Rice, and can't really speak for my colleagues who will be doing admissions here next year. I have noticed that an MA from a good program (e.g. Wisconsin Milwaukee, Northern Illinois, Georgia State, Tufts, U of Houston, Texas Tech, Texas A&M in the old days before they spoiled their top notch master's program by introducing a totally unnecessary Ph.D program) is usually viewed by other Rice faculty as a significant mark in favor of an applicant (of course, the letters have to be good).

I'll also address the question of yield that was raised in the other thread. In the years I have been at Rice, I would estimate that we make an average of 9 offers to get 5 entering students. The last couple of years we have received about 90 applications, so our admit percentage is currently about 10%.

Once again, I'll stress that the single most important factor is the writing sample. It needs to show real philosophical ability. Extremely well written literature surveys will get you nowhere. It should also be not too long, unless the place you are applying to is populated by masochists who have asked for a long paper. In my view, the ideal length for a writing sample is 10-15 pages (double-spaced). A conference length paper (3000 words) or slightly longer. Remember, we have to read large numbers of these things, and will give our best attention to a tightly argued piece that we can read in one sitting! Don't, don't, don't send a whole master's thesis, or senior honors thesis (unless you're Ed Gettier).

As for personal statements, I agree with another poster that these are pretty meaningless, but I'm not sure whether others entirely agree. I know that one or two of my colleagues actually read them, but I don't think they're fooled by seeing their own names mentioned as philosophical heroes.

Perhaps, after the admissions season is officially over, the original poster could contact the graduate admissions people at one or two of the departments that turned him/her down and ask what would have made for a stronger application?

[David Velleman]

I can't speak for any department -- only for myself as an occasional member of admissions committees. In answer to the applicant's questions:

1. In my experience, GRE scores are not used as a filter of any kind. GREs have little impact unless they are unusually low or high, and even then they are incorporated into a holistic interpretation of the evidence. I have never seen a decision based primarily on GRE scores.

2. In itself, a prior graduate degree doesn't count for or against an applicant. Indirectly, however, an MA program can help an applicant whose undergraduate preparation in philosophy has been weak. An MA program can enable such an applicant to write a stronger writing sample and to obtain more informative letters of recommendation.

3. In itself, taking time off after the BA doesn't help or hurt an applicant. Indirectly, however, time off sometimes enables an applicant to write a more focused statement of purpose. In my experience, programs do not hesitate to admit students who are 30 years old or older.

This disappointed applicant should know that admission to graduate programs in philosophy has become unbelievably competitive. I, for one, would not have been admitted to graduate programs in philosophy under current conditions.

One effect of the new competitiveness is that applicants who haven't majored in philosophy -- or made up for their lack of undergraduate background with an MA or BPhil -- are being shut out of the discipline. The reason is not that admissions committees require a BA in philosophy per se; it's rather that the quality of writing samples is now so high that non-majors are unlikely to be competitive. Successful candidates tend to be highly professionalized -- which, IMHO, is not good for the profession.

Finally, I should say that this year's applications have led me to worry that the praise in grad-school recommendations may be even more inflated than that in recommendations for jobs. The number of students said to be "the best I have ever taught in my 25-year career" strains credulity.

[Paul Litvak]

I was a U Michigan philosophy and comp sci undergrad (never took any of your classes, Professor Velleman), who is studying decision science and psychology in graduate school, and in our program, this year's applicants look strong compared to my pool just two years ago. The pattern extends back. More and more undergrads are coming in with more research experience, and double and even triple majors.

All of this implies, contra the notion that recommendedations are inflated, that perhaps indeed each year's applicants, outpacing previous years, are indeed "the best a professor has ever taught in his or her career."

[Kris]

1. How important is the name of the institution on the applicant's undergraduate degree? I would guess a Harvard grad with poorer scores and banal letters of rec easily beats a graduate with an otherwise sterling application, who is from a school of somewhat lower esteem, say The College of New Jersey. (A good place to go to school, no doubt)

2. Isn't it an understatement to say that GRE scores are unimportant except if they are exceptionally high or low? I mean, aren't you more inclined to believe the sterling things said in the applicants 'inflated' lettera of recommendation the higher the applicant's GRE scores?

3. People actually read the writing samples?! I guess that explains why I didn't get into Harvard. :)

[Nick Bujak]

to Matt,

the links are: http://www.thegradcafe.com select "results" and then filter by the letter that corresponds to your program (so, 'p' for philosophy).

who got in? is a livejournal community, which can be found at http://who_got_in.livejournal.com At that community, you would need to find the thread labeled "Philosophy PhD Programs, 2007." People post all their results and funding info, which gives you quite an insider perspective.

Also, generally speaking, I found another livejournal community very helpful, namely: http://applyingtograd.livejournal.com

That is a community where anyone applying to graduate school will post questions and, quite often, very helpful advice. This time of year it is mostly people soliciting advice on how to finish up the admissions season, so if you are interested in advice on applying, I'd wait until the early summer months before you get a really serious group of prospective students contributing.

I hope this helps.

[John]

I have just been through the application process, and I only got in at my last choice school. I'm gathering from these discussions that I probably should have applied to a terminal MA program, but now that I haven't, I have a question about going to my safety school: what is the situation like with transfering from a Ph.D. program with a masters? Is that looked down on? I don't know whether or not I will be satisfied there, but there are some areas they don't cover at all that I think I may want to end up doing significant work on. Is that a usual/acceptable thing to do?

[Alastair Norcross]

Kris asks " How important is the name of the institution on the applicant's undergraduate degree? I would guess a Harvard grad with poorer scores and banal letters of rec easily beats a graduate with an otherwise sterling application, who is from a school of somewhat lower esteem, say The College of New Jersey. (A good place to go to school, no doubt)"

I don't know about others, but I can say that the Trenton State (sorry, still can't get used to the new name) grad would beat the Harvard grad in this comparison, assuming the writing samples also differ accordingly (the Harvard grad's being worse). Maybe it's because I was an undergrad at a prestigious institution (Oxford), and saw who went there (me, for example!).

What can hurt is coming from an undergrad institution that no one has heard of and that has a very small philosophy department. College of New Jersey certainly doesn't fit that bill. If you do come from a small and/or obscure place, an MA program would probably be a good idea as a stepping stone to a good Ph.D program.

[David]

"Texas A&M in the old days before they spoiled their top notch master's program by introducing a totally unnecessary Ph.D program"

It's not clear to me, as a recent graduate of A&M's MA program, that the addition of an unnecessary Ph.D. program (I agree it's unnecessary) has compromised the quality of A&M's MA program. The majority of graduate students in the dept are still MA students and there's been no drop off in teaching and mentoring support for MA students. The faculty are still unequivocally committed to producing top-notch MA graduates (as far as I can tell), and are, for the most part, meeting this goal. The placement record in the years since the Ph.D. program began remains strong (contrary to Prof. Norcross' intimation), with several very good placements coming just last year. (You can check out the inexplicably difficult-to-read placement record at http://philosophy.tamu.edu/Philosophy/Grad/placement.html) So, as I already said, it's not clear to me why Prof. Norcross would charge A&M with having a "spoiled" MA program.

I understand that this is a little off the stated topic, but I'd be remiss if I didn't step up to correct a mistaken perception of A&M's very good MA program, especially since there are philosophy students reading this in an attempt to figure out what they need to do to put themselves in a position to be competitive in their Ph.D. applications. If earning a decent shot at a good Ph.D. program is your aim, spending some time in A&M's MA program can certainly help, despite it's addition of a Ph.D. program.

[Alastair Norcross]

OK, I'll back off from my criticism of the A&M master's program, which was really a criticism of the introduction of the Ph.D program. When they decided to introduce the Ph.D program, many of us who knew the MA program (I have taught some excellent A&M grads, and known many more) were dismayed at the prospect of this spoiling the MA program. I know that the decision to introduce the Ph.D program was also not unequivocally supported by A&M faculty. However, if they are still managing to produce good MA's and place them in good programs, then more power to them. Now, when will they abolish the Ph.D program?

[Unsuccessful Applicant]

My thanks to everyone who offered encouragement, suggestions, and comments. I now have a much better understanding of why I was unsuccessful this year and what I should do to improve my application. Although I finished my B.A. many years ago, I wrote my writing sample without help, shortly before submitting my applications, and I'm sure that it wasn't as good as it needed to be. I also see that my reliance on my good grades and GRE scores was misplaced. In order to improve my writing sample and update my philosophical credentials, it seems clear that I should pursue a master's.

The discussion of various M.A. programs has been helpful, but could anyone clarify why the PGR and commentators in this thread so strongly and exclusively recommend going to schools without PhD programs? For example, Stanford offers a terminal M.A. program. Would you *really* be better off going to a school with little name recognition just because you might get more attention there? (I gather that the argument in favor of going to schools without PhD programs is that the professors at schools with PhD programs would ignore M.A. students in favor of PhD students.) The "name brand" value of schools seems to matter quite a bit at every other stage of the process (i.e., undergrad to grad school, grad school to academic job), and I can't help but be skeptical about the claim that it wouldn't matter at the M.A. to PhD stage. But then, I've been wrong about a lot of things this admissions season ...

I just use Stanford as an example, as I haven't been admitted to its M.A. program and couldn't afford it, anyway, but I have applied to M.A. programs at several other schools that offer both the M.A. and PhD and are arguably better known than most of the schools the PGR recommends for terminal M.A. programs. Am I poised for another misstep on my path to academia?

[Tim O'Keefe]

Most good Ph.D. programs that also offer the M.A. aren't interested in admitting people who want to get just an M.A. So you'd have to meet the same admission standards either way. And if they do allow people to apply as M.A.-only students, they typically wouldn't offer those people funding.

(There are exceptions; from the thread below, it looks like TAMU might be one.)

Usually, the terminal M.A. at places like UT-Austin (at least when I was there, although things may have changed since then) is taken by people who wanted to get their Ph.D. at UT-Austin but decided either (a)changed their minds about getting the Ph.D., or (b) decided to pursue the Ph.D. elsewhere, and thought they might as well get some sort of degree for their time and trouble. Others (like me) used the M.A. as an opportunity to grab another degree along the way and to work with some folks on a thesis as a preparation for grinding out the dissertation.

[Chlump Chatkupt]

1. How necessary is a BA (or, similarly, a significant number of courses) in philosophy, ceteris paribus? I majored in economics with a concentration in game theory and mathematical economics and was compelled by circumstance to complete primarily economics, mathematics, and 'distribution requirement' courses, leaving me with only a handful of opportunities to study philosophy. Several professors have remarked that I will only be lightly considered as a candidate, given my background (or, more precisely, my lack of formal philosophical training), while another suggested that my academic performance and my undergraduate work, the relevance of game theory to philosophy, and my unique constitution (academic, mind you) ought to be more than enough.
2. What strategies exist to de-emphasize this disproportion?
2a. Being interested in philosophy, I decided a while back to write a paper in philosophical logic. I have since submitted it to a professional journal for review and, hopefully, publication. My hope is that this will serve as a significant reflection of my ability. In your opinion, how effective is this strategy of compensating for the dearth of philosophy courses with a published paper?
2b. In relation to point 2a, how might this strategy be more efficaciously pursued? Are multiple submissions, when not explicitly prohibited, unethical or unprofessional?
2c. Can the published paper be used as the writing sample?
3. A professor and de facto advisor indicated that a hiatus of two or more years after graduating with an undergraduate degree can be conspicuous and met with great suspicion. Consequently, a prospective student will need to 'explain himself' in relation to his philosophical development. How accurate is this assessment?
4. From my experience with philosophy majors, I have studied at least as much philosophy on my own as they have formally in the classroom. But I do not want to be presumptuous about my abilities, especially when my advisors have been cautious. What is typically expected of a prospective student?

Thank you.

Chlump

[Errol Lord]

Chlump,

W/r/t 2b: submitting the same paper to more than one journal at the same time is explicitly prohibited by the huge majority of major philosophy journals (I have only come across one that allows multiple submissions, but I cannot remember which one off the top of my head). Consequently, it is unprofessional (I won't comment as to if it is unethical as well).

[Chris Stephens]

I wanted to respond to something that Tim O'Keefe mentioned that may reflect and important difference between Canada and the U.S.

In Canada, until fairly recently, it was nearly always standard practice that you got an M.A. in philosophy before you got a Ph.D. This may explain why there are many programs (e.g., UBC) with robust M.A. and Ph.D programs, with separate admissions for each.

So at UBC, it is quite common for students to get an M.A. and then go elsewhere for the Ph.D., and at least in recent times (since I've been at UBC) the M.A. students have all been funded (with T.A.ships, generally) just as with the Ph.D. students.

Our recent M.A. graduates have also been very sucessful in getting into good Ph.D. programs. Just last year we placed UBC M.A. students into Ph.D. programs at U Mass-Amherst, Indiana (HPS) and U of Texas-Austin.

So students in the U.S. might think about looking north for an MA at schools that also have Ph.D. programs. The situation is similar at schools such as Toronto (separate M.A. and Ph.D. admissions) and I suspect their M.A. students also do well in getting into Ph.D. programs, though I don't have first hand knowledge.

(And GRE scores aren't even required at UBC).

Best,

[Paul]

To unsuccessful applicant: Terminal MA programs tend to be designed for people who are not-yet-ready for a PhD program, and who want to attend such a program. (And since they advise students about PhD applications all the time, they are presumably quite good at it). This seems much more ideal than getting an MA as part of a PhD program (for someone in your situation, at least).

I would add that the "name brand" for most of the programs that have been mentioned is quite strong. I think if you look at the placement records which most of the MA programs have posted on their websites, you will discover that top-tier PhD programs regularly admit students with terminal MAs.

[Mark van Roojen]

On Chlump's questions, but also in response to some other comments above:

Remember that most of us giving advice don't actually have a wide range of experience to draw on beyond how it works in the places we have been. So when someone says "Such and such will be viewed in this or that way," it often means, 'I would view it in this or that way.'

It has been 20 years now since I applied, but I was out of grad school 3 years before I went back and I did not develop philosophically during that time, nor did I try to argue that I did. I got into 5 out of the 7 programs I applied to and I think they were all near the very top. My theory is that the better a program is the more pride it takes in its admissions and the more effort they put into the evidence in their admission files. So a good writing sample, well-evidenced letters of recommendation and so on will swamp any negative inference someone might draw from time away. (And what would the inference be anyway?)

Relatedly, I personally would take a game-theory econ background as good evidence of some skills relevant to philosophy. A strong writing sample would give additional evidence that I could use to judge for myself. Some of my colleagues put more weight on a strong background in philosophy. We might argue about this in a meeting and sometimes it might go one way and other times the other way.

GREs the same way. I tend to discount them unless they are really bad, but I used to write GRE questions as a summer job in grad school and I tend to think they test the ability to take GRE tests and not much more. Some of my other colleagues give them much more weight. (This same variation existed at my graduate institution.)

So I think Dave Hilbert is right to emphasize the somewtimes haphazard nature of admissions. You have groups of people coming to a decision where different people in the group may accept different rationale's for those decisions. Thus there may be no overall rationale that would justifiy a given ordering arrived at by this procedure. There is all sorts of literature on voting which shows that how votes are structured and agendas set can influence outcomes and that groups can have intransitive preferences depending on the rules for agglomerating preferences.

[Lisa Shapiro]

Let me second Chris Stephens' post. There are quite a number of very good MA programs in Canada for the reasons Chris mentions. However, my understanding is that Toronto is more focused on its PhD program, though it does admit terminal MA students as well.
SFU (Simon Fraser University) has both an MA and PhD program, but for various reasons focus on the MA program. We fund our MAs with TAships, and we have an excellent record of placing our MAs in top PhD programs. Last year's graduates started PhDs at CUNY, Birkbeck, Utah, and Western Ontario this year. University of Victoria has a good MA program as well. So, British Columbia, in general, is good for MAs. There is an annual BC Graduate Student Conference, and in the next few years the region will host the History of Philosophy of Science Association conference, and the annual Canadian Philosophical Association meeting.

Other good terminal MA programs in Canada (from West to East) include those at Alberta, Calgary, Western Ontario and Dalhousie. I would guess that McGill and Concordia also have good programs, but don't have good knowledge.

[Eric Schwitzgebel]

I have some comments on these matters -- recently updated -- on my blog at:
http://schwitzsplinters.blogspot.com/2007/01/philosophy-grad-school-applications.html

[Stewart]

What are the chances of an older student getting into a good Ph.D. program? I'm in my forties, slowly pursuing a B.A. in Philosophy part-time, at a large state school in the bottom half of the PGR top fifty. My grades and GREs are high, my recommendation letters are reputedly good, and I have a B.A. in Computer Science from Pretentious Ivy League U twenty+ years ago (and many years in the software industry). When I finish my degree, I'd like to go to graduate school to use up my retirement savings and die penniless. Senior faculty in my department have indicated that they would welcome my staying on, but would anywhere else take a shot at someone who clearly would not be looking for an academic job when graduating at 55? I wouldn't require any kind of financial support, if that makes a difference. Thanks for any advice. My wife would also like any advice as to why I take philosophy classes instead of golfing or model-railroading or some other normal avocation of the middle-aged.

[Michael Kremer]

This is partly in response to Chlump's question, and partly the general advice I give to inquiring students.

Chlump asks what difference it makes whether the student doesn't have a BA in philosophy, and also suggests that he or she has studies as much philosophy on his or her spare time as many students with BAs in philosophy have.

Well, on the second point, how are you going to prove that?

As to the first point -- one reason you need to take philosophy courses is that you need to get letters of reference from philosophy professors. Great letters of reference from professors in other fields are going to be pretty opaque to philosophy admissions committees. They don't know these letter writers, have no sense of how reliable they are (as they often do with philosophers) and have no sense of whether they understand what makes for a good philosophy student.

Now to the general advice. Your application consists of 5 components: statement of purpose, GRE scores, transcript, letters of reference, writing sample. Statement of purpose: least important. Don't spend a lot of time on it, it's not like a college entrance essay. It may not even get read. If it does get read it can hurt you but it's almost certainly not going to be the thing that gets you in. It shouldn't look flaky or silly or extremely generic ("Ever since I was a little girl I have dreamed about the big questions... philosophy is the love of my life.) Ideally it should show something about your philosophical interests, your specific philosophical background and preparation, and your reasons for wanting to study at school X. GRE scores: these can keep you out if they're too low, often because the university administration sets a minimum threshold you have to meet. They can also get your application noticed if they're spectacular (think perfect or near perfect). Otherwise I don't think they make that much difference. Grades: these are important, but your philosophy grades are the most important here. You need to have a considerable number of A's. It will matter where you've studied too -- admissions committees do have a sense that some schools A's are harder to get than others. (Canadian universities sometimes put the average grade for each course on the transcript. When we see that the average grades are still C+ we pay more attention to A+'s!) Letters: these are really important. When a committee is trying to make a first cut through a large number of applicants, letters will be read because they contain a lot of information in a relatively short space. Three letters should come from philosophy professors. Not from other fields (see above) and never from graduate students TA's, even if you think they knew you better. (You can have an extra from a non-philosophy prof, but it should be an extra.) You should work to get to know some professors. And when you ask for letters, give them enough time to write them, and give them something to work with -- if you took their course last year, give them copies of the work you did for the course, etc. The more they can remember of you, the better their letter will be. Your letter writers should be people who have a high opinion of you and are happy to write for you. If they hesitate, ask someone else. Finally: writing sample. This is in the end the most important piece of your application -- IF you make the first cut. But in the crucial first cut stage, it may get looked at -- and for this purpose it's crucial that it have a good introduction and conclusion, because those are what committee members will turn to first.

[Tad Brennan]

In contrast to most of the people who have spoken up so far, I would say that I weigh GRE's fairly heavily. Not as heavily as writing sample and letters, but certainly heavier than overall GPA. And I will tend to prefer someone with good GRE's who did really well in some challenging non-philosophy topic (e.g. math or physics) over someone who majored in philosophy and has not-so-good GRE's (holding all else constant, not that that's simple--the non-phil major still needs a few good letters from philosophy profs).

I don't know whether that makes me utterly anomalous in the profession. If I am, there is a minor puzzle in all of this, since, aggregated by intended area of graduate study, applicants to Philosophy grad programs have the highest average GRE's on the verbal and writing sections (and respectable on quant, though on average behind the people going off to grad school in quant-heavy subjects). It's all on ETS' website, in a PDF called "GRE Guide to the Use of Scores."

So that's kind of weird. We've got all of these applicants to Philosophy grad school who are blowing away the GRE scores. And we've got all these people on Philosophy grad admissions committees saying they disregard them.

Does the disregard (to the extent we can trust the above reports as representative) stem from an embarras de richesses? The applicants self-select in such a way that the vast majority have good-enough GRE's, so we get choosy about other factors?

That's certainly not the inevitable outcome--a surplus of good scores could have resulted in bigotry over small differences at the top. (A caricature of my own position).

I don't know what to make of it. I can say that on a variety of committees at a variety of departments, I have had colleagues who de-emphasized GRE's, as most of the respondents above claim to do, and colleagues who weighted them as heavily as I do or more heavily. None of them have posted any comments yet.

Maybe one take-away lesson for applicants would be that when earlier respondents say things like "GRE's don't matter much, though they can hurt you if they're low", you should keep in mind that their sense of "low" is highly inflated by years of reading philosophy dossiers. Low scores for your average philosophy applicants are a lot higher than low scores for--oh, I don't know, some other humanistic discipline. See the report.

[Paul Emmanuel]

Hello,

I was wondering if some of any of you could provide some advice on the following:

1. Is an applicant with an open admissions-type MA, such as a Liberal Studies MA, considered "inferior" to an applicant equal in all other respects, but with a philosophy MA? What if most of the course work was done philosophy?

2. Would an applicants intention to provide his/her own funding be taken in to consideration?

3. How do admissions committees look at those applicants who do not intend to teach philosophy full-time, but just wish to earn the PhD for the self-fulfillment, and semi-strutted learning environment?

4. Finally, for those schools with joint Law/Philosophy (JD/PhD) programs is there any extra consideration given to applicants already in a school's law program?

Thank You in Advance,
Paul

[Thom Brooks]

I agree with Alastair's well said reservations about going to the UK for a PhD: there are certainly costs/benefits and I emphasized strongly one over the other.

Many on this thread recommend that some students pursue a M.A. at, perhaps, a higher ranked institution than where the students received a B.A. with an aim of moving up the ladder to a top Ph.D. programme. Again, I would here be tempted to recommend a M.A. in Ireland/UK---not least because it is normally a one year programme, which may be highly attractive to students.

That said, I don't know how highly colleagues rate non-North American M.A.-level degrees.

[Nat Coleman]

Ted Brennan says: '...when earlier respondents say things like "GRE's don't matter much, though they can hurt you if they're low", you should keep in mind that their sense of "low" is highly inflated by years of reading philosophy dossiers. Low scores for your average philosophy applicants are a lot higher than low scores for--oh, I don't know, some other humanistic discipline...'

What, then, will count as a 'low' GRE score?

[Matt Weiner]

In 2004 Brian had a post from someone who claims that GREs are indeed weighed heavily at many schools:
http://webapp.utexas.edu/blogs/archives/bleiter/001391.html

I can't speak to this for PhD programs from personal experience.

For those who are interested, there was more discussion of the merits of GREs at my blog and Marc Moffett's (I was against them, Marc for them):
http://mattweiner.net/blog/archives/000239.html
http://rationalhunter.typepad.com/close_range/2004/06/graduate_admiss.html#more

[Chlump Chatkupt]

Errol, that makes sense. Some journals, for instance, the Journal of Philosophical Logic, do not explicitly decry multiple submissions (or at least, I could find no information on the topic). But failing to forbid the practice is not the same as authorizing it, which is why I asked.

Mark, I suppose the inference would be that of a lack of focus or sustained interest or, perhaps, of a dulling of the philosophical senses. At least, this is the impression that I got from my professor, who is pushing me to apply as soon as possible.

Would the advantage to having a game theory background be directly proportional to its relevance in the intended area of study? I mean, for someone intending to study logic or epistemology, I would assume that a background in game theory could be at least as significant as certain other courses in philosophy, and perhaps, even more so (say, contra a repertoire composed almost entirely of history of philosophy). In essence, I am trying to assess how much of a disadvantage I incur for having taken only a handful of philosophy courses.

Michael, you are correct to say that the second point is unprovable. It seems to me that a more viable approach would be to emphasize the knowledge and abilities that I do possess and appear as a more interesting candidate.

Regarding the first point, when I did take philosophy courses, I was extremely engaged, speaking with my professors regularly and in depth. All have offered to write me recommendation letters, which is a good sign, I think. But you also note that grades in philosophy are weighed heavily. Obviously, this will be a problem for me. I did receive A's in the courses that I did take, but with such a small number, a proper evaluation will be extremely difficult. Here, Tad's first point is reassuring.

[Michael Kremer]

Chlump,

If you can get good letters from philosophy professors, that will go a long long way.

[Mark van Roojen]

Chlump,

I was thinking of game theory as also relevant to political philosophy and ethics.

[Elizabeth]

I myself am a recent rejected applicant of not one but thirteen graduate programs in philosophy (application at one school still pending). I was shocked and dismayed to be rejected from so many schools considering my near perfect GPA, relatively high GRE scores (well above the 500 per section minimum mentioned above), glowing letters of recommendation from professors with whom I've worked closely over the past years and the assurance of five professors from three different philosophy departments that I was "a strong candidate" and "sure to get in somewhere." After several long discussions with the head of the admissions department at one of the schools that didn't accept me I obtained this information as to why my application may not have been enough to earn me admission. 1. GRE scores are of a much greater degree of importance than anyone in this particular forum is letting on. If you have 400 to 600 applicants for 6 to 14 spots they are the obvious (and most effortless) weed out factor. The quote was "GRE scores are a horrible indication of how well you'll preform in graduate school, but an excellent indication of how well you'll perform with admissions committees."
2. Glowing letters of recommendations really only mean something if they come from professors who the admissions committee members have heard of. The fact that I, out of financial necessity, attended a school more known for its football team has come back to haunt me.
3. Youth and inexperience is a definite mark against you. It's much easier to deny admission to a 23 year old who could take two years off and still be tenured by 40 than someone who's coming back to school after a few years work experience or already completed a masters degree.
I don't know if this information is helpful so much as simply depressing, but that's what I've been told.

[Pat]

Elizabeth,

Wow that is very depressing (to me as a prospective applicant, at least). You didn't say anything about your writing sample. It looks like this is the most important component, yet a lot of people don't realize its significance and don't spend that much time working on it (I got this impression from reading Who Got In?). Could this have been part of your problem?

To faculty members,

Do you foresee any changes coming up with the new GREs? (They will be more math-heavy and non-adaptive, among other things). Will it be de-emphasized a bit in the first three years since it's still in its practical "testing stage"?

[craig warmke]

Actually, there won't be any changes with the GRE. ETS has cancelled its plans to revamp the test.

[Elizabeth]

Pat,
Feedback on my writing sample was more difficult to come by simply because, for a variety of reasons, I didn't submit the same sample every place. The best advice I have to offer concerning writing samples is to keep in mind where you are applying and don't hesitate to have a professor (or several) look it over and offer suggestions. Some schools are very specific about what they are looking for while others just want to see whatever work is your best. I've been told that it's best to stick to fairly conservative topics. However, I ended up on the waiting list at a school where I submitted a paper on Stanley Cavell's The World Viewed and Wes Anderson films, so take that with a grain of salt.

[Christopher Morris]

I have too much to say and still need to reply to the more than a dozen disappointed applicants to our program who have asked me for advice. But I do want to make a few comments quickly.

- David Velleman's point a few days ago about the competitiveness of graduate admissions now must be taken seriously. Unless you have served on admissions committees, it is hard to get a sense of how competitive admissions has become. The top 30+% of our applicants are great. It's embarrassing to turn many of them down. It's not difficult for a committee to make the initial sorting, eliminating a good half of the applications. It's very, very difficult coming with the top top group of 10 to 20.

- We don't weigh GRE scores very heavily (and I think I speak for all members of our admission committee this and last year). Why? In my experience high scores don't predict much about philosophical ability, and I know many able graduate students who had low scores (in the 60 percentiles). The one exception is that applicants with low quantitative scores may very well have problems with the logic requirement.

A word to older applicants (say, older than 45). The question will arise why you want a doctorate in philosophy. Many people -- retired people in particular -- might want to study more philosophy. But a doctorate is a professional degree, intended for someone who wishes to pursue a career at a university and who wishes to publish in academic journals. If what someone really wants is simply to learn more, my advice is to take some courses or even enroll in a masters program.

[Another rejected applicant]

I've discovered that applying to philosophy PhD programs is much like raising a child: one can be very conscientious and always try to do the "right thing" and still fail at it.

I applied to PhD programs three times: once immediately after finishing my undergraduate degree in philosophy, once a couple of years after finishing my undergraduate degree, and once immediately after finishing an M.A. at a well-respected terminal master's program in philosophy. The first time I was denied outright by all eleven schools to which I applied. The second time, I was denied by all 8 PhD programs I applied to, but was admitted to two M.A. programs (one not in philosophy, but at a top 3 school for philosophy, the other was a fully-funded TA ship). The third time, I was denied by 10 PhD programs, waitlisted and one, and accepted at one program (ranked at the time around 40) without any funding.

All three times, my peers and my professors considered me one of the best students in the program (at least at the time. I have no delusions about being the "best student they had ever seen"). As I mentioned before, I did "all the right things": I took extra courses, presented papers at conferences, worked to help professors with books and papers they were publishing. I never made a grade below a 'B' in any course throughout my academic career, and only three out of 26 of the philosophy courses I have taken earned grades below an 'A'. My GRE scores were well above average all three times. Every part of my application was better each time I applied. I tutored students in philosophy. I won academic awards, filled in for professors to teach, etc., etc. Moreover, I did many of these things not because I was thinking at the time "This will help me get into a PhD program.", but because I loved philosophy.

My experience was incredibly demoralizing, especially after my third try, when I had successfully completed an MA. It was also very expensive. I estimate that I spent around $5000 total just applying to PhD programs over the years (if you factor in things like postage, fees for GRE scores, etc.).

After applying three times, I have given up for now. Maybe I'll try again a few years down the road (possibly in a discipline other than philosophy). But the application process remains a total mystery to me and seems fairly arbitrary. I have learned a few things my three times, but nothing that hasn't already been said above. Just know that sometimes, it doesn't work out. You can heed all the advice and work as hard as you can at something and still fail miserably. Over and over. This is depressing to me, because philosophy is definitely my "first love". It is a shame that not everyone who loves philosophy so can make a career of it.

[Mark Murphy]

I would like to second Chris Morris's comments, especially regarding the level of applications.

This has been noted already, but it is worth emphasizing: by application time, the most important thing you can do is to work on your writing sample.

Why? The GREs are a data point, but not a make-or-break matter. (We have rejected candidates with perfect GRE scores, and admitted candidates with far-from-perfect GRE scores.) With the caliber of applications that we are getting, there is a large number of candidates whose transcripts are, in philosophy, all or nearly all A-level grades. (Add to this some suspicions of grade inflation.) Letters of recommendation are now so routinely inflated that their most worthwhile use is negative, calling attention to flaws in a candidate's dossier that we might otherwise have overlooked. Personal statements are not particularly useful in figuring out whether candidates are qualified, though they can be of some limited use in figuring out fit with the program.

What is left is the writing sample. My experience is that by the final rounds of deliberation, all the other stuff has receded to the background, and the writing sample is the focus of the admissions committee members. Candidates, if you ever are tempted to spend time taking a course to improve your GRE scores, or otherwise to prepare more for that test, do yourself a favor and spend it working on your writing sample instead.

[Lolita]

I think the thing is clearer: these students with good GPAs, almost perfect GRE scores and stellar LoRecs could be rejected by 9, 10 or 13 programs because their writing samples were not that good... Is it so?

[Smith Hyrule]

The first two times I applied to graduate school in philosophy I was accepted without funding, which was incredibly frustrating. The third time, I applied to only top non-philosophy programs and was accepted to almost all of them. So my advice to great students who are having trouble with the arbitrary nature of graduate school admissions is: mix up the application destinations. Other fields have more positions, more funding, and a deep respect for not only philosophy majors, but the types of well rounded, disciplined, critical thinking students that philosophy produces. You can still do philosophy in other fields (and you wont have to fulfill the logic requirement!), though you will often have to do more additional empirical work. Just something to think about.

[moderately successful (and damn proud of it!) applicant]

At the risk of modifying the subject of this thread, let me ask the following question: to what extent do the people here think a student ought to take PGR rankings into account when deciding on a school to attend? With time winding down to the April 15th deadline, I'm lucky enough to have a choice between two offers, one funded, one not, at two schools that are both very strong in the field that interests me. The only difference is that the unfunded offer comes from a school in the 25-30 range, while the other school doesn't appear in the top 50 (though it is mentioned in the specialty rankings). The former is a public school, and I have some money saved, so starting there and trying to pick up funding after a year or two wouldn't be out of the question, if it could be reasonably expected to increase the chances of getting a good job (actually, any job) upon graduating.

I've been told by one advisor that, in his experience on hiring committees (at a school with no grad program but whose phil. dept. is, as I understand, well-respected), applicants coming from any school outside, say, the top 15 are all viewed more or less indiscriminately as long-shots (i.e. they may get further consideration but must have something that makes them stand out). Obviously this school (among the top 50 undergrad in the US) can afford to be pickier than many, but I'm wondering if such sentiments are shared in the philosophical community at large (i.e., is there a point at which the overall rankings cease to matter that much and differences among job applicants are decided mainly upon other factors?).

Finally, I'll note that this was my 2nd time applying, the results being disastrous the first time around. Things went considerably better this time, with a number of wait-lists in addition to the two offers noted above (the unfunded offer coming from a school that rejected me outright last time). My dossiers were pretty similar in most respects, but I generally applied to less competitive schools this time (if PGR ranking can be taken to roughly indicate competitiveness), and I did HEAVY revisions (hopefully improvements!) to my writing sample. So, my advice to students who've had a rough go of it is: don't get too discouraged, perhaps modify your expectations a bit, and do everything you can to make your writing sample better before re-applying.

Thanks in advance for any thoughts!

[Carl Seaquist]

Dear Mod Succ App:

Take the funded offer. That's easy. Regardless of where it is, if you've only got one funded offer, then you've only got one funded offer. Never accept an unfunded offer unless you can pay for the whole degree out of pocket.

The only other alternative is don't accept any of them, if on reflection you'd rather take a job in a used bookstore or bank (or whatever your other options are) than attend the non-top-50 school. It makes sense to apply to schools you might not be willing to go to, but now's the time to decide if that school is worth it to you.

If you don't know what else you'd do with your life besides grad school, it might make more sense to accept the non-top-50 offer, and see how you like it. Leave with an MA if you decide it's not for you. But going into debt the first year of grad school puts added pressure on you: you need a job, you need a certain income, and if you're borrowing then interest is accumulating so the fiscal clock is ticking along with the biological clock and the I-need-a-job-before-I-turn-40 clock. Grad school is enough stress without that.

[Paul]

To the moderately successful applicant: If you spend some time with Google, you can probably get a sense of where these two institutions place their students. Better yet, you might compare how students of your probable adviser at each school have done. This can take some time, because different departments give different amounts of information on the "placement" sites. But if you know someone from, say, Maryland was placed at, say, Marquette, then you can go to the Marquette website, and hopefully find that person's CV (and hopefully find the name of their adviser).

Also, though I am not sure about this, you might want to be wary of accepting an unfunded offer with the hopes of securing funding later. That is, unless you have some independent reason to believe that funding will be available (and that you will not be competing with many other students for those funds).

[Matt Weiner]

Paul said:

Also, though I am not sure about this, you might want to be wary of accepting an unfunded offer with the hopes of securing funding later.

From conversations with people at PhD programs, this sounds very accurate. It's my understanding that when a program admits you without funding, it is often very unlikely that you will be able to secure permanent funding later. My advice would be that unless the people at the program tell you that it is likely -- not possible -- that you will get funding eventually, if you go there you should plan on paying for the whole degree out of pocket. So, as Carl Seaquist says, take the funded offer.

Of course people with direct experience may be able to correct me.

[Marc Bobro]

To my knowledge, the chance of receiving funding after starting off unfunded in an MA/PhD program depends largely on how successful one's fellow graduates fare in their courses. For example, in programs where the MA is not just a formality (e.g., it used to be and might still be the case that at the University of Washington in Seattle, the MA amounts to a "weeding out") radical changes in one's funding can occur after two years. If you, as an unfunded grad, do well in the MA program, then you can expect funding in your ABD years, especially if the work of your fellow funded grads doesn't measure up to your own. I'll bet that it's smarter to accept unfunded offers from schools where funding is guaranteed for no more than two years at a time and is contingent on strong performance, than to accept unfunded offers from schools where it is normal to give "full-rides" and where the MA is mainly a formality.

[Iain Martel]

Matt said,

"My advice would be that unless the people at the program tell you that it is likely -- not possible -- that you will get funding eventually, if you go there you should plan on paying for the whole degree out of pocket."

Actually, even if they say funding is likely, say no. People lie. Funding dries up. The applicant you don't know is always better than the one you do.... I know several people, from different places, who were told funding was almost certainly just around the corner, but it never came.

Yes, it is true that there is a strong bias against those with a non-top-15 PhD, particularly at the research universities, and in fields that are currently "hot". Put together the evidence from this thread that the admissions process is far from perfect with the statistics on placement in top-50 departments, and the bias is clear. But at the teaching-focussed colleges where most people get jobs, the bias is less strong.

There is, however, a third path, which no-one has mentioned yet: start at the lower ranked department and, if you stand out in your first year or so, "transfer up". In eight years at Colorado, I saw at least half a dozen "star" students come through the grad program, only to move on to Cornell, MIT, NYU or elsewhere after a year or two. All of them did very well - including one of the co-authors of this blog! (I ignored advice and stayed.) And if you don't stand out in the first year, chances are you wouldn't have made it in the higher ranked program anyway.

[Pat]

One thing I don't understand is the following. If grades and scores are used as a screening tool, why not just set a minimum GPA requirement? If you know people with less than, say, a 3.3 are going to be screened out, why not just set that as the minimum GPA required to apply?
This might have the desirable of effect of decreasing the applicant pool (maybe, I don't know).

(It may be the case that at least part of the reason why so many people apply and so few get in is because that are no requirements other than having a B.A., yet the standards are in fact very high). I noticed as I was browsing through websites of some Canadian universities that they have some GPA and other requirements, and it seems to make sense all things considered. But I'm sure insiders on the process will know better and perhaps be able to explain the rationale behind not having any requirements.

[Michael Kremer]

Iain Martel: Why is 15 the magic number?

I used to teach at Notre Dame, which is currently ranked 13-15 on the PGR. (Mean score 3.7, Median 3.5) I now teach at Chicago, which is currently ranked 20-22 on the PGR. (Mean score 3.4, Median 3.5) I think the placement records of these two departments are actually pretty comparable. (And I think the reputational scores are not all that significantly different either, which reflects my experience of the two departments, both excellent in their own ways.)

I admit that to our shame we (Chicago) don't have a decent placement record on our website yet. The whole website is undergoing a drastic overhaul and we should have a real placement record up soon. Anecdotally, though (and just going on what I happen to know about): among our current students on the job market this year we had students hired into tenure-track positions at Fordham and UC San Diego, and recent grads were hired at Cal Tech and University of Alabama, Birmingham. I don't see the effects of a drastic prejudice against a non-top-15 school here.

I tend to think that the median PGR score is a good rough indicator of reputational groups, and I do think that a move down on this indicator matters to job prospects somewhat (this measure yields as groupings: top 2, next 3, 6-13, 14-23, 24-34, 35-54, others). But at the same time excellence in a particular field can boost anyone working in that field from a lower ranked department.

[Michael Kremer]

Pat -- we don't set minimum GPA requirements because we know that a low GPA can reflect a lot of things (a troubled freshman year, for example). My own GPA would have kept me out of schools that set a minimum GPA of 3.3. We don't just screen out all such candidates, but we do consider such a GPA a warning sign and look for an explanation. (So, if a student failed some courses in freshman year and then became a straight A philosophy student in junior and senior year, we don't want to exclude her.)

Further, we are aware that GPA does not mean the same thing at all schools -- some schools suffer more from grade inflation than others. (Again, as I noted above, Canadian schools often give lower grades, as is made crystal clear when *average* class grades are given on transcripts -- C+ seems to be typical at Toronto!) So we don't want to just set a minimum GPA and there is no formula for weighting different schools GPAs differently.

In our process at least there are no simple criteria for culling the pool. There is a lot of experience and judgment based on experience that goes into the process. Nonetheless, the truth is that there are always more acceptable candidates than we have slots to fill.

[Alastair Norcross]

Pat asks "One thing I don't understand is the following. If grades and scores are used as a screening tool, why not just set a minimum GPA requirement? If you know people with less than, say, a 3.3 are going to be screened out, why not just set that as the minimum GPA required to apply?"
The reason we don't do this at Rice is that occasionally a very promising philosophy student is a late bloomer, who only discovers a passion for philosophy late in their undergraduate career (I spent the first three of my four years at Oxford doing extensive research on applied hedonism, before deciding I wanted to study the theoretical side as well). We do give "rule of thumb" minimums on our website, both for GPA (3.0), and verbal GRE (80th percentile), but we stress that each application is different, and that the writing sample is the most important element.

[Brian Leiter]

I just want to record my agreement with Michael Kremer's comments, above, about how to interpret the reputational data.

[Chlump Chatkupt]

Mark, your observation about game theory and political philosophy and ethics is right. I did not mean to exclude them from my simple example.

Michael, on the one hand, I continue to hear that recommendation letters are one of the two most important components of the application (the other being the writing sample), and on the other that they are inflated and that, even when glowing, are generally considered to be more of a minimum requirement ('table stakes') rather than a determinant. In other words, a bad letter will have a more powerful effect than a glowing letter.

But then again, it seems as though all of the requirements share the same trait: adequate when great, but deeply injurious when not. No wonder it's so hard to succeed!

There will always be stellar candidates and too few spots to accommodate them. What is the difference between a superior candidate and the superior candidate who is, in fact, admitted? This distinction seems to be vague and depressingly arbitrary.

Regarding Elizabeth's third point, I don't see much of a difference between a 22-year-old graduate and a 24-year-old recent graduate who has been working for two or three years. Is it really easier to deny admission to the 22-year-old in this case?

Finally, regarding Smith's point, a professor offered me the same advice: apply to a non-philosophy program (e.g., economics) and pursue philosophical work. He gave the example of Amartya Sen (a philosophically-minded economist or an economically-minded philosopher). How practical is this approach in reality? Wouldn't the need to fulfill the requirements for the program diminish the opportunity to focus on philosophy? Do some schools offer interdepartmental transfers (e.g., begin in economics, but then move over to philosophy)?