maxhgns

Many are admitted to the BPhil, few go on to the DPhil. Oxford has punishing exams that are effectively gatekeepers on steroids. If you make it to the DPhil, your last hurdle is the thesis.

All kinds of things could have happened. We nearly had to halt admissions ourselves a few years ago due to a strike by admin and support staff. Perhaps they lost a university-level source of funding at the last minute. Perhaps they had to make some last-minute budget cuts. It sucks, and I'm sorry to hear it, but these things do happen.

Don't sweat it too much. Everyone knows profs can be flaky. Adcomms won't hold it against you. They'll either send you a note if one's missing, contact the prof directly, or both.

In my mind, in an ideal world everyone would apply to about 10 programs. The norm, however, seems to be about 20. Depending on your AOI, you may or may not find that many programs which are a good fit. If you're into the philosophy of art and you're applying to 25, I think you're making poor decisions. If you're into metaphysics or language, however, then it might be a workable number.

There's no point applying anywhere that isn't a serious contender for you. You're going to have a miserable time on the job market pretty much no matter what, so there's no point sucking it up for six to ten years in the hopes that things will get better long-term. They probably won't. So only apply to places you would actually care to attend. On UConn: they went on a hiring blitz after the last PGR ranking. Everyone expects they'll make a significant gain next year, when the new PGR comes out. Like, jumping up twenty spots or more kind of significant.

Vancouver has several universities (UBC, Simon Fraser, Capilano). Both UBC and SFU are very good schools (Capilano is kinda new), although they're larger. Most universities in Canada are on more or less the same level for an UG degree (there's some small variation, but it's nothing like in the US). One of the main differences, however, comes with the size of the school. The Maritime provinces have a number of small liberal-arts universities that focus primarily on student learning and feature small classes (e.g. my upper-level classes averaged about eight students). They're consistently ranked as some of the country's best, although as I said that doesn't mean as much as it does in the US. If those interest you, have a look at Mount Allison University, Acadia, St. Francis Xavier, King's, St. Mary's University, and St. Thomas University. For larger schools, you could consider McGill (it has a not insignificant Israeli population, and its strong ties to Montréal's Jewish community means scholarship opportunities), Concordia, Dalhousie, Queen's (not much history of philosophy or continental, although I don't think you should worry overmuch about subfields yet), UBC (also not much continental), UAlberta, Calgary, and UOttawa.

And yet you not only read Schelling, Hegel, and Nietzsche, but self-published a book that makes liberal use of their ideas without having bothered to read the Critique of Pure Reason?

You have a chance. Sounds like a gimmicky writing sample, though. If your supervisors/advisers OKed it, then it should be fine.

When I TA for introductory courses, my students always balk at their first assignments, complaining that the word limit is too low (sometimes it's as low as 500 words for the first paper, with increasing limits as the semester unfolds, and sometimes it's as high as 1200 words). The brutal, honest truth, however, is that they can't yet be trusted with more words. They all think they can write strong, focused research papers, but they're wrong. The proof is how badly they garble their 500-word exegeses. They just haven't developed the skills required to write a proper research paper yet. Those skills will come with time and practice. It's the same for us all, dfindley. We like to think we're exceptional, but we're dead wrong. We can't be trusted with that kind of writing, not yet. It's a skill one develops, not an instinct with which we're born.

I did my UG at a small department that focused exclusively on the history of philosophy. The closest to anything contemporary that we did was Heidegger and Merleau-Ponty. And one year there was a single class on logicism. I knew that this wasn't representative of all philosophy, and I wanted exposure to whatever the other stuff was (even though I had no idea). So the MA schools I chose (up here, MAs are the norm) were all either quite analytic or had strong analytic sides. The one I went to was purely analytic, and focused on applied ethics and political philosophy (TBH, I had no idea at the time). I learned a great deal, but was also overwhelmed by the methodological and terminological differences. For my PhD I tried to apply to well-rounded departments, although I'm now pretty much exclusively analytic (with some small historical AOCs).

FWIW, Schopenhauer wasn't down with "systematic" philosophy. And I don't think he'd have been favourably inclined towards Nietzsche, Heidegger, or Sartre. I'm still not convinced this isn't a case of trollolol, but anyway... if you're serious about applying to grad school, you need three letters of reference. And you need a strong writing sample, which you want to be as free from typos and other errors as possible. You should be wary of sending too long a sample, too: respect their requested limits, and send your strongest work. If that's a chunk from your book, that's fine--you can include a short blurb explaining that it's chapter x of a work y on... etc. Your cover letter will need some work: as it stands, it's just an advertisement for your book, and doesn't really tell anyone about you or why you're applying where you're applying. And there's not much need to extol the virtues of your system--if it's that good, they'll see it when they read it. Finally, you should probably rethink your choice of schools. Most of them are exceedingly poor fits, given your interests.

I don't think this is for real, friends.

There is zero respect for institutions that aren't bricks and mortar. As for distance learning at a bricky place... I don't know. At least, not at the MA level. It might be ok, though I doubt it'll be as respected as a proper degree. If it were a PhD, that would be career suicide before your career even began.

I'm Canadian, and did a one-year MA. I then took a year to prepare my PhD applications. Most of my MA cohort applied out that same year, but it was a tremendously difficult and draining process for them (at least for those with whom I remain in regular contact), and their applications weren't really any different than they were/would have been the year before. Frankly, I don't think it's advisable to do what my cohort did and apply out the same year, precisely because your file isn't substantially different and because you've had virtually no graduate experience yet (so you haven't a clue what grad life is like, what the expectations are, and your writing hasn't really improved yet). Plus, it's really stressful to have to do that as you're negotiating a new and probably unfamiliar environment with a number of new pressures (e.g. TAing). If you end up at a 2-year MA, then great: you've got two years of funding ahead of you, and can take a little more time with your PhD applications in year 2. If you do a 1-year MA, then take that year to focus on it exclusively. And then take a year off, work outside academia, and take a full year (well... from whenever you defend 'til your application deadline... so probably August-December) to prep for the PhD application cycle. That way, you won't have any distractions, and you can minimize the stressors. As for what's beneficial in the long-run... so far as I'm aware, most programs don't give much in the way of course credit for MA courses. At my institution, you end up having to do just one class less than those straight from a BA. Personally, I think it's desirable to have a large number of courses under your belt. I only did 6 as an MA student, and only had to do a further 12 before becoming ABD. Had I taken fewer courses, I would be much, much worse off, philosophically speaking. Even though they no longer count for credit, I've audited another 12 since then, bringing me to a total of 30 grad courses. From what I see on other people's cvs, that's actually on the high end. But the payoff is huge: grad courses bring you up to speed on a given topic, force you to engage quite critically with the literature, and develop your presentation and writing skills (to say nothing of the increased breadth of knowledge, which can prove to be a real asset later when you're trying to come up with paper ideas and that kind of stuff). In a nutshell, I don't a one- or two-year MA will make a huge difference for you in the long-run, but I do think that it's worth thinking of even the one-year MA as a two-year chunk of time. If you find one that works for you, fantastic. If you find a two-year MA that works for you, also fantastic: there's no harm at all in the extra coursework.

Writing sample. That's the most important part of your application. Your GRE scores are the least important, especially if they're already decent.

That still doesn't seem to square up. If you're worried about the fact that the MAPH program is unfunded... NSSR is, at best, only partially funded. Their best offers are, like, 30% of tuition. So you have to make up the difference and then pay New York cost-of-living prices. Besides, they have something like 110 grad students for about 10 full-time faculty. There are all kinds of funded options out there, even for your interests.

How does that concern square with the NSSR?

Don't worry about it, and focus on stuff you *can* improve. AFAIK, virtually nobody makes the first cut on GRE alone. What they do, often, is set aside low GRE scores for further follow-up (i.e. looking at your grades and stuff). Also, FWIW, the Leiter rankings are of graduate, not undergraduate, programs.

Remember that having a law degree =/= becoming an attorney. To be a lawyer, you have to pass the Bar. But just having a law degree is very useful if you're looking for jobs with NGOs, in politics, or even just doing grunt work at some firm or clinic. You (typically) do not need a background in philosophy to pursue an MA. Having that background is desirable, but it's not usually a necessary condition for getting in. By auditing, you acquire that background even though you don't get credited for it. Just sitting in (and actively participating!) is definitely sufficient to get a feel for the subject and build a relation with profs.

I'm going to reiterate the advice given above: it's not really worth quitting law school, especially not at a T5 institution, and especially not when you're halfway through. Your global prospects are much better with a law degree from one of those schools than with any philosophy degree. Hell, even your philosophy prospects will benefit from a law degree (phil. of law is an excellent and attractive area of teaching competence, and the two degrees would position you well for a joint hire). That said, you needn't give up on philosophy either. Use the time left to you in law school to position yourself as strongly as possible for an MA (and try a Canadian MA--they're funded more/more often than US MAs are). Use your time to audit classes, and acquire some of the background you'll need. Use that time to get a solid letter of recommendation from one of your teachers (who will likely be a well-known philosopher, which is especially useful). Use that time to acquaint yourself with philosophy, and make sure you really do want to pursue it. Use your free time to acquire advanced proficiency in another language (if you're Canadian, you should have several years of French already; building on that should be easier than trying to acquire German from scratch. You can always attack German from a position of strength later, as a grad student). And then, when you hit the job market, you'll have a solid fallback option thanks to your fancy law degree. If I were you, that's what I'd do. It's a hard road, to be sure, but not nearly as grim as quitting and pursuing philosophy. Use your current position to your advantage! There are all kinds of advantages to be had, you just have to reach out and take them.

Odds are, most won't even notice. And when they do, they certainly won't care.

If you don't apply, you won't get in. If you do apply, you've got about as little chance as anyone else. Don't worry about what's beyond your control, and focus on what is still in your control--i.e. your writing sample and cover letter/statement.

The best "continental" MAs from Canada would probably come from Concordia, Guelph, Toronto, and MUN. And Université de Montréal, if you can speak French (you can write your work in English, but the language of instruction is French). Possibly also the University of Ottawa.

McGill (not much post-structuralism, though), Toronto, and Guelph are all that spring to mind. Memorial is just starting up a PhD program, and it's specialized in "continental". And for the MA, there's Concordia.

I try to do the same, but I can be quite slack about it. I often just end up settling for an article and ten or twenty pages of a book a day, plus whatever writing I can squeeze out. During coursework, however, I typically had to do more and slack less.