PerpetualApplicant No More

Two thoughts 1) Having grown up in the northeast and moved to California several years ago, I can say pretty confidently that even if you have to go directly to Rochester or Iowa City, it will *feel* like moving to a foreign country. 2) In all seriousness, don't feel like the m.litt is your *only* chance to go abroad. Academics get to do this sort of thing for their whole careers if they want to: you can be a visiting student as a doctoral student, a postdoc, or a visiting scholar while on leave as a faculty member. EDIT 3) (Inquisition-style): Congratulations!!

3.3 GPA in undergrad AND my first grad program. The trick seems to be to go to a M.A. program such that your last two years of grades are mostly A's in grad clsses. This shows you've made some jump, either in terms of intellectual or personal maturity so that you can handle Ph.D. level work (at least, that's what Schwitzgebel says).

Fair enough--I should also add that I was specifically looking for really empirically oriented people in phil mind/moral psych and didn't find any, but I shouldn't extrapolate about those departments' having or not having analytic philosophers per se from that (in full disclosure: I'm as uninterested in large swaths of putatively analytic philosophy as I am in the SPEP school, so it might be that I avoided trying to study with precisely .those analytic philosophers who get along with SPEP stuff. For instance, I only applied to work with people who look at phil mind in an empirical, rather than normative, way).

A further thought: I said in my previous post that the relevant distinction for understanding the PGR in respect to continental philosophy was not analytic/continental but rather analytic and "PGR-blessed" continental versus "SPEP" continental. I think that's about right, with two important clarifications. Such a distinction explains 1) why the PGR subfield rankings favor some schools that do continental over others and also 2) why some schools with solid reputations and placement drop off of the rankings entirely. But, first, this distinction doesn't address whether PGR-blessed continental schools are themselves at a disadvantage compared to schools that completely eschew the continental tradition in the overall PGR rankings. That is, it is unclear whether Columbia, Chicago, Georgetown, etc. are hindered in the overall rankings by dedicating even some of their resources to people working in the continental tradition at all. Whether their overall rankings are affected in this way seems to be based on the entirety of survey-takers, not just those rating departments in continental specialties. Second, if it ends up being the case that continental generally is looked down upon in the overall rankings, I do wonder if we are overlooking a different (though not mutually exclusive) potential explanation as to the difference between what I've been calling the "PGR-blessed" continental schools and the "SPEP schools." Specifically, it seems to me (though I'd like to look into this more) that the former, but not the latter also have strong analytic scholars working there. For instance, I applied to UCR even though I don't do continental (full disclosure: I share Leiter's biases, but I'm willing to admit they are my biases and leave it at that) because of several strong analytic scholars in my fields. I'm not sure how much it will matter to my experience that the continental people at this school are of the "PGR-blessed" and not the SPEP sort. The reason I didn't apply anywhere like Emory is not because I have a preference for one sort of continental philosophy over another, but because they don't have anyone there who matches my interests, let alone someone who does and whose students get decent jobs (which is again not to say anything about the *overall* placement of the department).

A few thoughts 1) Re analytic/continental. I think the salient divide is not analytic vs continental, but something more like what Monadology said, analytic and one sort of continental versus another sort of continental (I'll call that the SPEP school). So I think the PGR generally should come with disjunctive advice: if you are analytic, or the "right" sort of continental, the PGR is ok for you, and can be used as a tool, viz a rough arbiter for your job prospects. If not, then you should determine what your job prospects would be in other ways. It also might be worthwhile, if you feel comfortable doing so, to think about whether you prefer the PGR-blessed version of continental or the SPEP verison (since there are such strong opinions about one or the other that will influence your professional circles). 2) I think looking at overall %tage of TT placement misses the point of what the PGR is about. The correlation between overall TT placement and ranking is negligible; what it does is get you jobs at *putatively* better schools. While it's also true that better is quite subjective, I think there is a fairly decent statistical barometer of what sorts of TT jobs are preferable to others, specifically, teaching load, i.e. a 2/1 or 2/2 job over a 4/4 job. I take lower teaching load to be a positive independent of whether one loves teaching (for instance, my undergrad SLAC had a 2/2 load, but the faculty's out-of-class duties were supposed to be more evenly split between publishing and spending time with students individually/supervising independent work than would be the case at a research university; I take something like that to be a preferable job for one who loves teaching versus a 4/4 load). And the thing is, although I don't know of any data, my impression is that PGR rankings do correlate fairly well with lower teaching load TT jobs (from looking at the job placements of various schools; also leiter at some point did a survey of what schools place in top 20 departments, which is related). 3) I think this discussion is, in a sense, asking the wrong question. Even only among those who are interested in analytic/Leiter-approved contintental, instead of asking "is the PGR worthwhile" the question we should be asking is "how can the PGR be worthwhile?" The answer is, IMO, to use data different from the rankings. First of all, as Johannes14 mentioned in the first post of the thread, we hear things thrown around like "you need to be at a top 10 department to do x" or "at a ranked department to do y." I think the PGR offers a plausible, though often overlooked way of 'tiering' the ranked schools: the median scores. Median of 4.5 is top 5, 4 is top 15, 3.5 is top 20, 3.0 is top 35, 2.5 is ~ top 50. These tiers seem to make a difference in how easy it is to get a low teaching load job. For instance, when someone notes that you can get a job from department X without being published, I understand them to mean a median 4.0 or 4.5 department. People do get top jobs from lower ranked schools (those with median 3.0) but they seem to have certain things in common: in addition to stellar work, they all seem to work with the most famous people at that school, and (not unrelatedly) in sub-fields where the school is ranked. For example, Maryland placed two 2009 grads at Pitt and WashU, they did philosophy of physics with Jeff Bub and philosophy of mind/psych with Peter Carruthers, respectively--two of Maryland's top areas and faculty. So the PGR is helpful in that you can see what your chances are for a low teaching load job by 1) seeing what 'tier' the school is in, and 2) seeing if the sub-fields/famous faculty match your interests. Of course an additional danger of trying to get a top job from a lower school is that the faculty--or your interests--might change. I had a prof who went to study at Harvard with Quine, but ended up going over from behaviorism to functionalism, so he started arguing with Quiine. He just went down the hall and did his dissertation with Putnam. You can do things like that at places like Harvard, but not lower-ranked schools.

Brilliant. But wasn't it "My metaphysics are superior"?

Thanks--this is really helpful. I guess my decision comes down to being between downtown and canyon crest (or some other neighborhood near campus). I have two specific questions that would help me make that decision: 1) How good is the public transit from downtown to campus (how often/late do the busses go)? 2) Is the shopping center really the only game in town for restaurants/cafes/groceries, or is it simply the highlight mentioned most often in this thread for the reasons you mention (e.g. good sandwiches--which is a definite plus), and there are other things as well?

I wonder if applicants with a MA vs. a BA should think about this differently, especially since admissions committees expect MA applicants to be more polished and focused in their AOI's. As a BA student, you aren't going to publish in phil review, so don't bother trying. Just write the best paper you can that demonstrates your potential. The adcoms understand you are coming straight out of undergrad, and, if they wanted to admit only students who had MA's, they could easily do so--yet they don't. As a MA student, you should also be focusing on writing the best paper you can to show your potential. I think people posting here are absolutely right that your sample is more important than anything on your cv (Note: this only applies for American programs. I've heard that it is different in the UK, since all doctoral applicants have a MA). That said, it's not unreasonable that a top MA student's best paper may be submittable to a top journal, and there is no reason said student should not do so. It won't come back to hurt you like having something in a lower-tier journal might.

Hi all, I'm seriously considering Riverside for the philosophy Ph.D. program and I had a quick question about the area. My issue is that I kind of love not having a car, or at least not having to use one at all regularly. So, I was hoping to live walking/biking distance to both campus and some cafes/restaurants (sorry, but starbucks doesn't count in my book!). From what I can tell, however, these options seem to be mutually exclusive in Riverside: people have said that I can either live near downtown and walk to cafes/restaurants but have to take the bus or drive to campus, OR I can live near campus but that the surrounding area is much more 'suburban' without local amenities (it seems most people are recommending that the best area near campus is next to a mall, which isn't really what I'm looking for). Is this true? Is there anywhere within a mile of campus that has cafes and is on a bus route to downtown? I'm not that worried about crime: I've lived for several years in 'questionable' neighborhoods of Oakland and Washington, DC and didn't really mind.

I have an interdisciplinary phil/psych publication in a special issue for philosophers of a top psych journal. I submitted it as my writing sample to some places, and submitted a different paper (a more conceptual moral psych paper) to others. So far, I've been denied exclusively at places where I submitted the publication, and my only offer of admission is from a place where I submitted the other paper. My hunch is either 1) The heavily empirical nature of the first paper was looked poorly upon (i.e. there was too much space dedicated to going over data/psych theory that there wasn't enough space left for me to show off my reasoning skills) OR (inclusive) 2) It helped to publish and then submit something else, to show that I was more than a "one-trick pony." Of course it could just be that the second paper was a great fit for UCR (it was on the work of people there) and publishing helped me not one bit. So I don't know what to conclude, but I hope this is helpful.

I remember seeing a claim on a WGI thread last year to that effect, though I have no further (read: serious) basis for believing so. But I agree it is a good practice.

Yes, but only to UCR--I submitted a differnet paper elsewhere (I thought the stuff was too specific). Seeing as I've been admitted only to Riverside, I am regretting my decision just a bit (I'm thrilled with UCR, but I would love a choice).

Totally agreed (sorry, reached my upvote quota for the day. Come on TGC: I can like multiple things!). That said, I think it would be helpful for students considerig the MAPH to have a frank discussion of its benefits and drawbacks versus, say, terminal MA programs (even unfunded ones). My impression is that even unfunded terminal MA programs--as well as two year MA programs at other PGR ranked schools--far surpass the MAPH in terms of placement in to Ph.D. programs. I know a couple of people who did the MAPH and none continued with their Ph.D. (unfortunately, we lost touch, so I can't say exactly why), and, while I have met Ph.D. students at PGR ranked schools who did their master's at virtually every Leiter top-10 MA program, I have yet to meet an alum of the MAPH currently in a doctoral program (of course, this could be sample bias--I certainly haven't met everyone!).

I'm going to visit UCR Wed-Fri for their recruitment event. Feel free to PM me if you are as well.

Congrats! For all Penn admits: let me know if you're visiting. I did my undergrad at a SLAC just outside of Philly, and can recommend some places to eat or stay (e.g. the best deli on the eastern seaboard is a few blocks west of Penn's campus).

I want to give you two upvotes: one for the post, and one for your handle and icon.

They are legit, I just spoke with someone in my program who received one.

Also got a UCSD rejection. Form email from grad adminsitration. It was one of the few schools I thought might be a better fit than Riverside, but oh well. I guess I can always get Bill Bechtel to be my external committee member.

Seeing this made me smile. Congratulations!!

The way I see it, there's no harm in emailing the department letting them know you've accepted another offer. If they are still reviewing apps, you'd be doing them a favor--one less to read!!

First, I'm in a bit of a unique situation in that I had the option to leave my MA program this year or next year. I chose to apply to a handful of my favorite schools, with the plan being that if I got rejected, I'd reapply to those schools plus many others next year. Second, I think I went in to this with a different theory (given that this is my fifth time applying, and I spent time at a M.A. program at a leiter-ranked Ph.D. school). Ultimately, I'm concerned about job placement, but looking at the school's overall placement doesn't paint a great picture. What I looked at is how the students of my POI's (my potential dissertation committee) placed in the last 5-10 years, as this is the most relevant data to my placement potential. What I realized is that while top schools do place overall better, at the middle tier of ranked schools (median 3.0, i.e. UCSD to Georgetown) your adviser really matters. In the 3 years I spent at my first MA program (in that 'median 3.0' tier), we placed two doctoral students at jobs in top 10 terminal MA schools and two at ranked Ph.D. programs--including one at a top five program! What these students had in common, other than being the caliber of students at top 20/10/etc schools, is that they worked with the most famous faculty at my program (well, the intersection between the set of the most famous and the set of the 'not impossible to work with'). With that in mind, I applied only to schools where I felt I could put a dissertation committee together that would, if my work were of sufficient quality, give me a chance to land a research/top SLAC job. I used the PGR but not the 'overall rankings.' In fact, the only piece of data I look at on that particular page is the 'median score' because I think tiering is more realistic than straight ranks. But the most important thing to me was that the program was ranked in all of my specialities (I looked for mind, cog sci to stand in for psychology/psychiatry, and either ethics or action to stand in for moral psych). Then, I looked at which faculty it was who earned that school their sub-field ranking, and looked at 1) whether their views and my own were in the same ballpark and 2) how well their students placed. Next I cut a few out for being in really bad (in my admittedly coastal elitist opinion) locations, figuring they'd go in the 'next year' pile. Finally, I dropped one school because of a crazy early deadline (one of my letter writers wanted me to finish the semester before committing). And that's my list.

A few points: 1) I think this is exactly right, at least in terms of what actually happens. We can argue about why, or whether it should be differently, but multiple faculty at different institutions have said the exact same thing, and Schwitzgebel says so explicitly on his blog. Further, I think one piece of evidence for things being this way is to be found in the success of top M.A. programs in placing applicants. A large part of what they do is give you more chances to get A's, help you with your writing, etc. but also significant is the fact that the faculty at these programs are active-letter writers (if not also active researchers) who send multiple letters out each year. As such, the adcoms are familiar with what "X is in the top 5% of my class" means from that letter-writer more than one who teaches at a school that does not regularly produce multiple Ph.D. applicants annually. 2) To argue conceptually anyway, I don't think the scout analogy applies: the primary job of a scout is to assess talent for 'the next level,' whereas the primary job of an undergraduate faculty member is to teach. 3) More importantly, I think this whole thread is setting up the issue in a way that misses something important. Specifically, we're talking about our letters as individual pieces of our application, when in reality they are a set that tell our story together. I'll try to illustrate with my own case; I apologize for the vagueness that follows (I don't want to reveal too much about the content of my letters). I have two letters that I'd call very strong ("I fully endorse X's candidacy for any program, X is among my top students") and one that I'd call ridiculously strong (pretty close to "X is my top student," which I call ridiculous because even I don't think it's true!). The first two letters are from a really famous professor at a top Ph.D. program nearby and from a junior but well-known faculty member at my MA program (which is in the leiter top 10). The third was from a postdoc at said local top Ph.D. program, with whom I did the most work out of my three writers. In isolation, my third letter probably isn't *that* compelling: the guy is a postdoc and thus not terribly well-known. But I wanted it because I think it fits in well with my other letters: the other two set the stage for saying I'm a strong student, and the third drives the point home. It could (I guess) still be interpreted as a weak letter in virtue of being from a postdoc, but it could also now plausibly be interpreted as a strong letter: since more well-known people have already said that I'm good, and this letter fills in more details because I've worked with this guy the most. In other words, my hope was that adcoms thought "well, big names A and B say X is smart, and X has worked with C the most, so we'll add C's praise on top of A and B's" rather than "Eh, C sucks, let's just look at X's letters from A and B."

Same. To quote Lucille Bluth, "I'd rather be dead in California than living in Arizona." (J/K: Congrats to all Arizona admits!)

Well, this is a longer discussion, and something you should give some thought to, but a few things come to mind: 1) Get a few papers up to writing sample level and use different ones for different schools depending on fit. 2) Apply more broadly (any ranked program that is also ranked in your sub-fields should be in game at this point--really, anyone where there are people who are famous enough to advise the dissertation you actually want to write and get you a job) 3) Apply to UK programs (since all of their applicants have MA's, they are more partial to things like publications, books, etc) 4) Yeah, publishing won't hurt. (It certainly didn't for me) 5) Work on your personal statement. Write a different one for each school, explaining what you'd like to do there, and why their faculty are a good fit for this project (given that you have your MA, you should know enough to write something along these lines; it's understood that your actual diss topic will likely change). 6) Stay involved with your MA program. Take seminars if you can (at least audit them and beg the prof to comment on/grade your paper). If you can defer graduating for a semester until Fall 2014, so that you are still technically in school when you submit apps, that would be good.

I understand that you're frustrated (believe me, I do--I've been there!), but I think you're missing the bigger point here. If, as you say, this is your future, and getting a ph.d. in philosophy is something you are determined to do with your future, then if you are getting rejected, the best thing you can do generally is find ways to improve your application for next year. I was really just using 'checking up on your letters' as an example of something you might be able to do in that vein. The general point is that (as those of us who have been doing this multiple times yet have received an offer this year can attest) getting shut out for a cycle is a roadblock, not a death blow, to your aspirations. To that end, even if you were somehow able to censure a professor for a letter (which I doubt), I urge you to ask yourself: would it in any way help your application next year or academic career in general to do so? Again, I'm really sorry that things aren't working out for you this year (really!!), but don't let your frustration lead you to doing something that cannot help and can only hurt your future.