maxhgns

Hi everyone. Just thought I'd pop in to consult with you all, since the internet isn't being as helpful as I'd like. I'm a grad in another field (philosophy), and I'm currently working on pushing out a paper that, while squarely philosophical, addresses some issues in literary criticism/theory. Long story short: The bulk of the paper is ready, but I want to ensure that it's à propos, and to my mind that means having a glance through some of the main criticism/theory journals to see what kind of work is being published these days. My paper aims to harvest some pretty low-hanging fruit, so I want to make sure the fruit hasn't already fallen off the tree. So, there you have it. What are the main journals that publish literary criticism and theory? I'm familiar with Philosophy and Literature, but I have a nagging suspicion that it's not a main (or even mainstream) one for you guys.

There is no such ranking. The PGR mentions SFU and sometimes one or two others, and that's about it. I think it's safe to say that most of the MA programs in Canada are pretty good, and they're not nearly as variable in quality as American MAs. The same is true for undergrad, of course. Because specialization isn't so important at the Master's level, things even out a lot more, even if some programs are more oriented towards certain kinds of things. Most Canadian MA programs don't publicize their placement records, and it's not unusual for a Canadian MA to be just one year long, although there is a growing tendency towards two years. Queen's is hands-down the best for applied ethics at both the PhD and MA levels. McGill has a solid bioethics MA program (distinct from its philosophy program), and it's good otherwise for applied ethics. Toronto is good for applied, and probably the best for metaethics.

The thing is that content does matter, and your content just might not be up to snuff, or you might be pitching it to the wrong crowd. To be honest, from what you wrote it sounds like you're one of those cranks who saw the cult of personality in some philosophical circles, noted the 19th-century German tendency towards systematic philosophy, and figured that you could come up with a system too, since that's what philosophers do. And then you tried to pitch it to people directly, and encountered resistance. And now, rather than trying to get your work read through the usual channels (viz., publication), you've decided that the key missing ingredient is a credential: if only you had a PhD, people would listen to you. Well, that's not the case. Your approach is wrongheaded, and doesn't jibe with the conventions that operate in academic circles. It's not your credentials that are the problem, it's your hard sell. When philosophers today want to convince one another of some fairly revolutionary new ideas, we break them up into component arguments which we separately present at conferences and publish in journals. Once we've had success with a few of these component arguments, we tie them all together in monograph form, which we then pitch to a reputable academic press. The process is slow and conservative, but it also does result in truly novel ideas--even systems--getting out there, and gaining wider acceptance. Just look at Graham Priest's work on dialetheism. It sounds to me like your reasons for seeking out a PhD programme just don't really mesh well with the way we tend to think of the doctoral education process. We don't undertake doctoral education to sell people on some prepackaged "system" of philosophy. We undertake it to become academics, to explore the field in depth and participate in its development at the highest level. Maybe I'm wrong, and that's not at all what you're up to. In that case, I'm sorry for mischaracterizing you and your motives. But that's pretty much all the sense I can make out of your post.

Look for the programs where the people you read teach. You should also start by looking at the Philosophical Gourmet's specialty rankings. Don't take them as the gospel's own truth--there are a lot of problems with them--but it is a good place to start looking. Those are all among the best PhD programs for phil. of mind, but most programs with strengths in phil. of science and metaphysics are also going to be pretty good for mind. And don't treat them as a strict ordinal ranking.

Good to know.

The "admissions people" are faculty in the department, and they don't really give a shit about it. If you want to go for your own reasons, do it. If you don't, don't. It could be a really good, valuable learning experience, but it's not going to boost your application in any noticeable way. EDIT: I should add that if there are any scholarships (or grants) for which you can apply, you should do so. Those do matter. And if you want to apply for a Rhodes scholarship, remember that you have to be involved with some kind of sport.

DerPhilosoph is right. It's worth noting, however, that even at programs with a foreign language requirement, that's usually a requirement for graduation, not for entry into the program. Although, of course, the earlier you master a language you need for research, the better. Spanish is not going to count unless you're working on stuff that's mostly been conducted in Spanish. Just focus on your writing sample, GPA, and your statement of interest. Those are the only things over which you really have any control, and they're the things that matter most (letters matter, but they are what they are; if you have good grades and are developing a solid writing sample, your letters will say nice things about you [and everyone else's do too, so they won't really help you stand out]). Don't waste time doing things for the sake of your application that you wouldn't otherwise do for reasons of your own. Oh, and try to brush up on your logic. It'll make it easier to deal with the logic requirement. Not every program has one, and not every program has a hard one. Many do, however, and it's best to go into it with a solid background. It can be a real gatekeeper in some places.

The ASA's Graduate Guide to Aesthetics is a good place to start. Remember also that analytic philosophy of art is blooming and just coming into its own, and there's a lot in there that might be of interest to you.

I don't think it would hurt to email them, especially now, long before the semester or application season is upon them. Their responses might not be helpful, but then again some might be. FWIW, Shapshay is amazing. A treasure of that department.

It's easy enough to think of scholars with a research concentration in Schopenhauer's thought. What's harder is finding philosophers at PhD-granting programs (who aren't emeritus). The only other scholar who springs to mind immediately is Dale Jacquette at Bern. Paul Guyer (Brown) has published on Schopenhauer, as has Lydia Goehr (Columbia). I guess some time peering at the Schopenhauer Gesellschaft might reveal a few more. Incidentally, they currently have an essay competition on for an essay on Schopenhauer and religion.

The Guide can be found here. An update is in the works and will be posted in the same place once it's available. It's a good place to start, so long as you realize that it's almost entirely based on self-reporting, and not all of those departments are equally equipped to deal with a PhD student specializing in the philosophy of art/aesthetics. Reported interests aren't quite the same as an active research agenda, community involvement, and mentorship. It also doesn't offer any info about musicology at those schools.

True, those are important exceptions. Thanks for catching that. I don't think either of them is much of a fan of post-structuralism, but Goehr definitely knows a lot of "continental" philosophy. I'm not as sure about Higgins but you're right, she probably does as well. (At any rate, they're both knowledgeable about "analytic" philosophy of music!)

A few philosophers at PhD-granting institutions have engaged seriously with music. From the top of my head, Goehr at Columbia, Raffman at Toronto, Kivy at Rutgers (I don't think he's taking new students, though), Davies at McGill, Davies at Auckland, Levinson at Maryland College Park, Predelli at Nottingham, Higgins at UT Austin, and Dodd at Manchester. I have no idea about their musicology departments or interdisciplinary offerings, but you might start looking there. Note, however, that all of the philosophers mentioned above tackle music from the "analytic" perspective. You won't find much Marxism or deconstructionism there, nor will you find much sympathy for such approaches.

Having actually been on the philosophy job market (in North America, the UK, continental Europe, and elsewhere) this past year, I can definitively say that quite a few jobs want to see your transcripts (often including UG). The extent to which they matter is unclear, however. I don't think they matter much unless they're notably bad. The exception is for grants and other competitive fellowships (e.g. SSHRC). At that level, your doctoral grades play into the committee's assessment of your capabilities, and they're usually pretty upfront about that in their descriptions of the evaluation process.

knp and be. are exactly right. You need a PhD, not an MA. Even community colleges, which historically have needed only an MA, are migrating to the PhD requirement. That's just because there are so many PhDs on the market now that we're crowding out those who just have an MA. And by and large, you need a PhD from a bricks-and-mortar school and program. Someone might maybe succeed with an online degree, but the odds will be even more stacked against them than they normally are. And you have to realize that the odds are stacked against graduates of real, well-ranked programs to begin with. Most of us will not find full-time employment in philosophy. Most of us will try for a decade before giving up. With an online degree, you won't have the teaching experience to compete against other US and Canadian grads. You won't have the prestige to compete against other grads (online programs are looked down upon). You may well not have the letters to complete, or even the research experience. The most important thing to know, though, is that virtually nobody gets hired to a tenure-track job upon completion. Even full-time (but non-tenure-track) jobs are really, really hard to get. For some perspective, I applied to more than 100 jobs in 12 countries this year, and got one interview for a full time but non-tenure-track job. For most of those jobs, there were between 400 and 800 other applicants. Fewer than 200 full-time jobs were advertised this year. Total. And remember that most of those jobs are restricted to particular areas of specialization.

One of Kaplan's former students told me (a couple years ago) he's no longer taking students. Even if he was wrong, it's near that point in time.

Yup, but not just hiring decisions: a lot of how you're treated in the academic world is also just name/brand recognition (think, e.g., of the studies showing how highly Princeton Law ranks, even though they have no law school). Ivies, Berkeley, Princeton, and Michigan would all have to sink quite far to outrun their natural buoyancy! Conversely, a school like Bloomington (just to pick one) would probably have to do quite a lot more to get into those hallowed echelons. This can translate to all kinds of advantages or disadvantages even beyond the job market, from opportunities to publish (political philosophers need only look to the recent publishing scandal) and conference, to making the cut for grants, etc. You can only expect philosophers to have a sense of a school's Leiter rank and "philosophical prestige". People who are outside the field or just not in that loop are operating with a very different list from the one you might assume they're operating with, and it's not necessarily a list that's going to treat Rutgers as a more prestigious institution than, say, Cornell, Brown, or Stanford. It's also not going to be a list that's 50 departments long.

Of course. Just ask. They might say 'no', but it doesn't hurt to ask.

I forgot Université de Sherbrooke, which is also an exclusively Francophone institution at which you can earn a PhD in philosophy,

That is false. In Canada, you can get your PhD in philosophy from Laval, UQTR, UQAM, Université de Montréal, all of which are exclusively French-speaking institutions, University of Ottawa, which is a bilingual institution with a fully bilingual program, and McGill, which is an English-speaking institution but which allows the submission of all materials in French.

Not really. Even the PGR's most vocal defenders will tell you there's basically no difference between PGR ranks for departments within about .5 of one another (on the mean score). Prestige is a weird thing. It's definitely correlated to rank, but it can deviate significantly. All of the Ivy departments, for example, enjoy a lot of prestige, but for most of them it's totally out of proportion to their philosophical clout (this happens elsewhere too: think of departments housed in universities that don't have a geographical name). And some departments enjoy quite a bit of prestige, but in a fairly narrow band of subfields (think CMU). Departmental prestige is not at all linear, and it peters out pretty quickly.

Pittsburgh probably has the resources to offer a spousal hire, and Paul has the clout to ask for one.

If there's a language requirement, you'll usually have to make a case for learning a "non-standard" language, especially if you want the department to contribute towards the costs. What matters is getting your advisor(s) on board: they'll pave the way for you (or not).

Have you spoken with students in each program? What does your prospective advisor's placement look like? Her graduation rates? (Also: a lot kind of hinges on your assessments of what counts as "good" placement.) Which one is more closely connected (institutionally, geographically, etc.) to the professional organizations relevant to your interests (assuming it's not just the APA)? Does one of them make it easy to get around on the conference circuit (through proximity to regular conferences, access to fundsd, etc.)? Does one program make active efforts to professionalize its students? Are faculty at one place freer with their feedback than at the other? How's the student camaraderie? Morale? What do the recent graduates and job market candidates have to say? Is the money better at one of them?

The norm in Canada is to have a Master's degree before doing the PhD. Some of the top Canadian programs (Toronto, McGill, UBC, UWO) will accept PhD students straight from the undergrad, but not many (I think Toronto is the real exception). As a result, Canadian programs are shorter than their American counterparts (but longer than in the UK/Europe): you take courses for two years (one in some places), and then write your dissertation for the next 2-3 years. A Canadian PhD is a four-year affair, although programs usually fund for five years, and I think the average time to completion is six years. As an international applicant, however, those deadlines matter a lot (because of your VISA restrictions). You'll probably have to finish in five. To my knowledge, all of the English-language programs fully fund their students, but none of the French programs do. Most programs can only accept one or two international students a year, however. (Toronto might be the exception here, I'm not sure.) In the UK, a PhD is strictly a research affair. You get three years to write your dissertation (although a fourth year is not uncommon). That's it. When applying, you have to submit a full proposal, and when you get there you have to work on it. There's no coursework. Consequently, you must have an MA to get into the PhD programs. There is no application fee. Oxford and Cambridge are exceptions in most of these respects, and the way they work is really weird. You'd have to ask someone from there exactly how things are. Funding is very, very hard to come by for a UK PhD. In the US, the norm is for people to apply to PhD programs straight from their undergraduate degrees. All of the reputable programs fund their students, though not always especially well. Students take two to four years of coursework (usually two), and work on their dissertations for the rest of their time. Average time to completion is something like seven years.