PerpetualApplicant No More

A few points: 1) There is a distinction between what a letter-writer thinks is a (sufficiently) positive letter and what is, and the two are not always co-extensive. A professor may think that what he or she is saying is great, but it may not look like other great letters. From what I understand anecdotally, this is especially common in 'across-the-pond' applications, as British letter writers are positive but honest, whereas American letter writers are (and hence American adcoms expect letters that are) positive and hyperbolic. Even if it's not true about British and Americans generally, it's possible in particular situations. So, if at all possible it's worth checking *how your letters were received* independent of how your letter writers intended them to be (I don't know if they still do this, but UC Davis used to send rejections with a form that told you what was wrong, that's how I found this out once). As a caveat, I add 'if at all possible' because admissions processes are putatively confidential. But if you are at CUNY, you can always ask a prof who knows someone at that school and see what happens--worst case, they say they can't do it. 2) Not all profs agree with you. All agree that writing a terrible letter is unethical, but some think that writing a decent, but unexceptional letter is not (i.e. 'this student is well suited to ranked programs in the bottom half' is technically not terrible--it's not 'the candidate has fine handwriting'--rather, it is saying the student is decent but not fantastic). Yet the people who get in to lower ranked programs generally have letters that say they are capable of succeeding at top-ranked ones. 3) If the question you asked your profs is "can you say positive things?" then your phrasing is a bit ambiguous and I could totally see a professor feeling comfortable both assenting to that inquiry and at the same time writing a letter like the one in 2). I asked my letter writers something more blunt: "Will your letter be strong enough to in theory help me get into Rutgers?" I figured that to get in anywhere, I needed letters that would be sufficient for "a Rutgers." I used Rutgers since it is the most selective school to which I want to apply in the first place, but you can substitute out whatever. The particular school you mention isn't important, being precise about how good you expect your letter to be is.

Sure it does. But there is more to it than that: you have to apply to the right program, at the right time (i.e. when they're looking for a student who has your interests). One thing you can do is try to find out how your letters were received, and, if they were not all stellar, get a new one or two (rule of thumb: do not get a letter from anyone who has ever given you less than a full A). That said, sometimes it just takes time. I am in my fifth round, and I finally got an offer.

Actually, they did use a short wait-list last year, despite the same notice being up on their webpage. That said, they should also send out rejections fairly soon, so things will be clearer at that point.

I think it's helpful to distniguish two overlapping questions contained here: first, does reapplying hurt your application versus applying somewhere for the first time, and secnod, what is the function of the 'have you previously applied here?' question on applications. To answer the latter question, I think Table is absolutely right. To answer the former question, re-applying can hurt you if you do it wrong, but will not if you do it right. Doing it wrong involves submitting essentially the same application as last year: you submit the same writing sample, same letters, and, crucially, have taken no more classes. If you do this, then the adcom has, for all intents and purposes, already reviewed your application and reached a decision on it--the one they reached last year. Of course, the adcom makeup may change, the pool may be substantively weaker, but your chances of even being considered are contingent on such factors outside of your control, so I would just not do it. On the other hand, it won't hurt you at all if you produce a substantively different application, where you have done more work, gotten (some) new letters, etc. At that point, you are, for all intents and purposes, a different applicant, one now defined in terms of your new file rather than your old.

I'm really sorry to hear that you have gotten this vibe. For the record, although I am personally a bit jealous of some of your offers (I'm not sure I'd take them over the one I have--but I would love to be able to visit and make the choice myself!), I think you're doing exactly the right thing. As long as each program you're visiting has faculty in your field who are well-known enough to tell others how great your work is (if it ends up being great), you should really focus on where you feel like *you* can do the best work.

Sadly no. If I recall correctly from last year, they reject some people in their first round internally, and those who make the second round but are not offered a spot or a position at the top of the wait list comprise the extended wait list. But they do not send out rejections to either the internally rejected or the extended wait-list until after the class is full.

From what I remember from last year, Arizona has a short and an extended wait list. They only initially email people on the short list, but do not reject people on the extended list just in case. However, it's extremely unlikely that those on the extended list will be made an offer: I'd treat it as a rejection for practical purposes, and be very pleasantly surprised if it turns out otherwise.

Fair enough. I found, from my personal experience, that doing more work to prepare myself for next year after I had been shut out in the first round benefitted both my next application and my occurrent psychological state. So, taking such an attitude helped me. And, given how much I can relate to Platonist's state of mind, I thought that doing so might help him/her as well. But I didn't mean to imply that doing so would categorically be best for everyone who has not gotten in.

Two points: First, Platonist said that all but two of his/her programs had released both offers and wait-lists. That was my evidentiary basis. Second, having sat around holding out hope (I was active on the wait-list at one school right up until April 15 last year), I think it's better to assume that you are not in until you hear otherwise, and, subsequently, it's better to work at laying out plans for re-applying than to sit there oscillating between hope and despair. Of course, this is easier said than done.

I think you're absolutely right that fit is crucial. Because this discussion is comprised of applicants with differing interests--and with different levels of clarity regarding their interests--the discussion often mentions only the 'objective' factors involved in applications. And this is truly unfortunate: fit is as important as anything. Further, the putatively objective factors aren't necessarily objective: what might be a brilliant writing sample to one committee might well be boring to another, some committees might know your letter writers better than others, etc. UCR is definitely a fantastic fit for me: I only applied this round to places where I could put together a 'dream team' dissertation committee (at Riverside, it'd be Schwitzgebel, Fischer and Jaworska), and my writing sample was on reasons-responsiveness and moral psychology.

Good to know I'm not the only one! And, as someone who knows where you're coming from, congratulations! I would say the Riverside admissions are a coincidence, but it's at least plausible that they aren't. I've heard secondhand (read: to be taken with a large grain of salt) that Riverside and Maryland in particular are more forgiving of applicants' non-traditional backgrounds than many other committees.

Thanks! I think you raise an important point here in your parenthetical statement about developing as a philosopher. Since this forum is about grad admisisons per se, I couched my statements in those terms. But the best--and, arguably, only--reason to continue in graduate education at all, be it at the M.A. or Ph.D. level is because you love philosophy and want to do more of it. Two points. First, I don't mean to be cynical, but if the work of academic philosophy is not more intrinsically rewarding to you than other lines of work, then you can take your skills, apply them to another profession such as law or programming, and have a much more secure career where you make much more money for at most the same amount--and likely less--work. If philosophy isn't special to you, then it seems crazy *not* to do these things. Second, and more to the point of the discussion, the best way to improve your application is to keep doing philosophy and work on becoming a better philosopher. As Schwitzgebel says in his blog regarding writing samples: "the sample must be clearly written and show a certain amount of philosophical maturity. I can't say much about how to achieve these things other than to be a good writer and philosophically mature. I think they're hard to fake." I think this point applies to letters and grades as well: you will do better, and get better letters, if you are more 'philosophically mature.' And increasing your philosophical maturity in this sense is precisely the goal of these M.A. programs--it is in exactly this way that they improve your applications (in addition to the advice they give you on how to form it). EDIT: It is really strange quoting Schwitzgebel: in the past few days, he has gone from being a guy whose blog and papers I occasionally read to the frontrunner for being my dissertation adviser.

Platonist, I really really feel for you, and I want to give you some hope and advice. But the hope isn't the generic "keep hanging in there! it'll happen any day now" sort. I'm sorry to say, but you are probably correct that you are being shut out. What I want to say is that if you love philosophy and really want to do this, then getting shut out is a roadblock, not a death blow. I should know: this round is my *fifth time* applying for Ph.D. programs. I have been shut out four times before (hence my handle). But I now have an offer of admission with full funding (I think they even gave me an extra year!), and will be moving on to my Ph.D. next year. First, I applied out of undergrad, and did not get in to any Ph.D. programs, but did get in to a M.A. program at a Leiter-Ranked Ph.D. school. However, I wasn't really ready to do grad work at that point, and I struggled. I didn't get into any Ph.D. programs coming out of there. I took a few years off, and, at risk of oversimplifying, I grew up. So I started re-applying, but I really needed to prove that I was a different student than I had been in my first MA program. I took some classes as a non-degree student at the local PGR ranked Ph.D. program, but that still didn't work. (I should add that each time, I checked this site as obsessively as you seem to be). But then I enrolled for a second MA (most places, it turns out, let you do that!). And that worked! I'm hardly cleaning up in admissions--I think my bad MA grades from my first program will always hurt me a bit--but who cares? I am in, and I can compete for the next level (jobs) with people on an even playing field (no one will care about my grades, let alone those from years ago, when I am a job candidate!). Now, I understand my situation is not your own. It seems like you are coming straight out of undergrad. What I would hope that you (and others being shut out) would take from my story is that you can always improve your application, and what you should do is simply figure out the best way to do that, and then get right to it. It is, I gather, in this vein that you are asking for statements and writing samples. I have (IMO) a better suggestion: look into a M.A. program. Right now. Many of the top ten MA programs are still taking applications (I know that Brandeis, GSU, SFSU and UMSL are, some others may be as well). These programs exist to fix deficiencies in your application, and they will give you the guidance you need to do so. It sounds like you are in a place where you know you need to improve your app, but are unsure how to do so. They will tell you. Moreover, and possibly more importantly, their letters will count more than those from faculty at schools that generally do not produce Ph.D. applicants simply because the admissions committees are familiar with those letter-writers as letter-writers.

As a (grad) student, erring on the side of not pestering is a good thing generally, but I think you're ok in this situation. Right now, they're recruiting us--they chose our applications, and are interested in hearing from us! And if that's not true, then, well, I blame Eric Schwitzgebel for writing it on his blog. That said, it's no big deal either way. I'm just thrilled to be in, and am really looking forward to visiting.

I was the other UCR offer. The email was from the grad school, not the department, but I've been in touch with the department (like you, about missing transcripts). I confirmed that these offers are legit, and was told that the reason the department hasn't sent anything yet is they are still putting together their plans for hosting prospective students, and should contact us directly next week.

So when is it "over"? I got shut out except for a wait-list (also at CUNY, where apparently I was fairly high). The DGA emailed me late last week telling me "Hang in there ... I'll be in touch again soon." and then nothing. I sent him an email April 15 saying I was still interested, and I'd love to go if offered a spot (my AOS is phil psych). Should i just assume everything is done and I'm out, or is there actually a possibility that they're still making offers?