Philhopeful

I'm not sure this means anything, but the other day I could still log in to the portal that showed me the information that i had submitted with my application and now when i try to log in it doesn't show any of that anymore and says "competition status closed: no further action can be taken at this time." 

Hi--wanted to confirm that the Yale post is legit. Its from a good friend of mine who never made an account here. They do not want to release details to reveal who they are which is why the post is sparce. 

all im saying is cultures that put more emphasis on education are, all else being equal , more prone to have members pursue academic careers.
 
empirical data will obviously show implicit biases, i haver never doubted that. what i do in fact actively doubt, is to make URM a category to begin with, which is constantly assaulted by waves of static prejudices which cannot be remedied and significantly counteracted by a lot personal decisions. This and treating us as a group is no better, than saying "they coudnt do any better as individuals , so they need an extra push", and ironically that attitude itself is a benign form of objectification even well-intentioned.
 
but i will stop here. im gonna lose more of those rep points if i challenge the status quo and i cannot live losing those.

. if you actually want to discuss this without hang a nervous breakdown or highjacking a forum after i said i will leave it be, just message me. otherwise, i will take it that you just want the last word. But if people are curious to my response to this...
 
  1. english is my 2nd language, and  i may have a mild form of dyslexia, have you thought that as a possibility?
 
2. i dont take science to be a tabula rasa endeavour where i passively learn about laws of the world, nor is your thesis as obvious as you take it to be. im objecting to a morally suspicious interpretation of the correlations that have been found, for it treats "minorities" , which i suppose would include me, as helpless victims of a systematic bias as if my attitude, of either rising to the occasion or meekly taking this abuse is entirely beyond our sphere of influence as individuals.
 
3. you completely misunderstood, diligence to look for refers to information about what grad schools look for in applicants, specialization by department ect which is now easily available to almost anyone thanks to the internet, so the resource disadvantage for minorities in this specific endeavour has been mostly mitigated 
 
4. well I can throw facts back at you like the percentage of nobel price winners that are of jewish descent relative to their population, or the fact that there is discrimination Against asian americans in the higher education system, and its so evident that schools that are strictly merit-based like caltech have almost 50% asian populations.
 
5. i oppose the silly downvote system entirely, it had nothing to do with you specifically. i have seen here firsthand last year that if a person here has a controversial opinion here, they are likely to get downvotes just for that but what really makes it counter-productive, is that if you are already seen as someone who has a few downotes consistently, voting tendency will be warped to downvote almost anything such person posted  or to not receive an upvote when others clearly would have received one.  i dont want to name folks, but poor dfinley and vineyard last year got this treatment even when they posted sensibly.
 
now let it rest, or get the last word when i clearly said if you actually want a discussion , to just message me, i dont care either way.

ok, this downvoting stuff has gotten silly. if i do decide t return to gradcafe , it will be anonymously or with a non-posting account  because this is just ridiculous. The best part is that right after i said 5. that the downote system propagates an image of a user which makes one more likely to get down votes for even harmless comments, it is exactly what happens.

The issue of URM acceptances is so complex, I wouldn't know where to begin. I think one point to take from the conversation about minorities is that there are a number of things that puts them at a disadvantage (generally), some more burdensome than others + some not exhaustive. An American 3rd generation URM with college-educated parents might deal with issues of how s/he is perceived. It's not a controversial statement to make. On the other hand, an American 1st generation URM who went to a high school with a high dropout rate and low college placement and pretty much played catchup for 4-5 years in university (some of them going through community college in the process) deals with disadvantages far more serious (in addition to issues of perception). Most of the people in the latter category will never be interested in philosophy. Seriously, how does anyone from South Central decide to go major in philosophy? (If they make it to college in the first place.)
 
I congratulate any URM who had a chance to suffer prejudice in college. Many others never even made it that far. 

^ Really top notch advice right there. It inspires me to add a little bit of my own that I usually don't see mentioned here. As always, take with a grain of salt.
 
Letter Writers: The most unpredictable part of the application. So much can go wrong. You might have one that says they only need papers from the class you took with them, and then they might represent your interests different than another professor does. They might say something tone deaf with realizing it (especially a risk if you have international writers). Heck, they might just keep procrastinating turning your letters in even after they have them written (one of my professors didn't do it until a month and a half after my last deadlines.) But they can also sometimes go the extra mile and even email professors you want to work with at other institutions and tell them to be on the look out for your application. In either case, they are kind of a wild card, and you want to do what you can to reduce the possibility of something going wrong. You should do whatever you can to get your letter writers to take a cheat sheet listing your past courses, interests, and accomplishments, or even better yet to give them a copy of your personal statement when you ask for the letter. Additionally, if you have an international writer, you should check if they have written US letters of recommendation before and offer to direct them to people at your department if they have questions about conventions.
 
The Super Advisor: If you are in a position where you still don't have a single adviser picked out, you should be on the lookout for people who you think are really ready in invest in you. Here are some examples of things that a super adviser might do for you (usually spontaneously): probe other professors you've taken courses with and then email you saying that they will write you strong additional recommendation letters if you send them your materials, offer to read every single one of your school specific personal statements, send you random encouraging emails as the process drags on, introduce you to faculty at other departments at conferences so you can get different reactions to your work, will tell you you got in or didn't get in somewhere before the emails go out because they ran into someone and asked.
 
Writing Samples: There are a lot of different ways of being original that don't always involve supporting or attacking someone else's argument. For instance, you could write a paper observing interesting unrecognized structural similarities between a few different arguments, you could write a paper looking for ways that a particular debate is unclear and asking an original question, or you could argue that there are connections between two different debates that haven't been appreciated. Papers doing any of those things will probably stand out some just by virtue of trying to be original in a different way. 
 
Departmental Fit: It doesn't always just mean that your interests mesh well with people who are already at the department. Different departments can also have different values. At one department I visited, I was told that, all else being equal, they especially looked for people who showed promise in constructing creative arguments. At another, I was told that they especially valued applicants whose personalities were conducive to a cooperative and accessible learning environment. There's no advice here really, but its something that I never thought of at all until after I started visiting.

^ Really top notch advice right there. It inspires me to add a little bit of my own that I usually don't see mentioned here. As always, take with a grain of salt.
 
Letter Writers: The most unpredictable part of the application. So much can go wrong. You might have one that says they only need papers from the class you took with them, and then they might represent your interests different than another professor does. They might say something tone deaf with realizing it (especially a risk if you have international writers). Heck, they might just keep procrastinating turning your letters in even after they have them written (one of my professors didn't do it until a month and a half after my last deadlines.) But they can also sometimes go the extra mile and even email professors you want to work with at other institutions and tell them to be on the look out for your application. In either case, they are kind of a wild card, and you want to do what you can to reduce the possibility of something going wrong. You should do whatever you can to get your letter writers to take a cheat sheet listing your past courses, interests, and accomplishments, or even better yet to give them a copy of your personal statement when you ask for the letter. Additionally, if you have an international writer, you should check if they have written US letters of recommendation before and offer to direct them to people at your department if they have questions about conventions.
 
The Super Advisor: If you are in a position where you still don't have a single adviser picked out, you should be on the lookout for people who you think are really ready in invest in you. Here are some examples of things that a super adviser might do for you (usually spontaneously): probe other professors you've taken courses with and then email you saying that they will write you strong additional recommendation letters if you send them your materials, offer to read every single one of your school specific personal statements, send you random encouraging emails as the process drags on, introduce you to faculty at other departments at conferences so you can get different reactions to your work, will tell you you got in or didn't get in somewhere before the emails go out because they ran into someone and asked.
 
Writing Samples: There are a lot of different ways of being original that don't always involve supporting or attacking someone else's argument. For instance, you could write a paper observing interesting unrecognized structural similarities between a few different arguments, you could write a paper looking for ways that a particular debate is unclear and asking an original question, or you could argue that there are connections between two different debates that haven't been appreciated. Papers doing any of those things will probably stand out some just by virtue of trying to be original in a different way. 
 
Departmental Fit: It doesn't always just mean that your interests mesh well with people who are already at the department. Different departments can also have different values. At one department I visited, I was told that, all else being equal, they especially looked for people who showed promise in constructing creative arguments. At another, I was told that they especially valued applicants whose personalities were conducive to a cooperative and accessible learning environment. There's no advice here really, but its something that I never thought of at all until after I started visiting.

^ Really top notch advice right there. It inspires me to add a little bit of my own that I usually don't see mentioned here. As always, take with a grain of salt.
 
Letter Writers: The most unpredictable part of the application. So much can go wrong. You might have one that says they only need papers from the class you took with them, and then they might represent your interests different than another professor does. They might say something tone deaf with realizing it (especially a risk if you have international writers). Heck, they might just keep procrastinating turning your letters in even after they have them written (one of my professors didn't do it until a month and a half after my last deadlines.) But they can also sometimes go the extra mile and even email professors you want to work with at other institutions and tell them to be on the look out for your application. In either case, they are kind of a wild card, and you want to do what you can to reduce the possibility of something going wrong. You should do whatever you can to get your letter writers to take a cheat sheet listing your past courses, interests, and accomplishments, or even better yet to give them a copy of your personal statement when you ask for the letter. Additionally, if you have an international writer, you should check if they have written US letters of recommendation before and offer to direct them to people at your department if they have questions about conventions.
 
The Super Advisor: If you are in a position where you still don't have a single adviser picked out, you should be on the lookout for people who you think are really ready in invest in you. Here are some examples of things that a super adviser might do for you (usually spontaneously): probe other professors you've taken courses with and then email you saying that they will write you strong additional recommendation letters if you send them your materials, offer to read every single one of your school specific personal statements, send you random encouraging emails as the process drags on, introduce you to faculty at other departments at conferences so you can get different reactions to your work, will tell you you got in or didn't get in somewhere before the emails go out because they ran into someone and asked.
 
Writing Samples: There are a lot of different ways of being original that don't always involve supporting or attacking someone else's argument. For instance, you could write a paper observing interesting unrecognized structural similarities between a few different arguments, you could write a paper looking for ways that a particular debate is unclear and asking an original question, or you could argue that there are connections between two different debates that haven't been appreciated. Papers doing any of those things will probably stand out some just by virtue of trying to be original in a different way. 
 
Departmental Fit: It doesn't always just mean that your interests mesh well with people who are already at the department. Different departments can also have different values. At one department I visited, I was told that, all else being equal, they especially looked for people who showed promise in constructing creative arguments. At another, I was told that they especially valued applicants whose personalities were conducive to a cooperative and accessible learning environment. There's no advice here really, but its something that I never thought of at all until after I started visiting.

^ Really top notch advice right there. It inspires me to add a little bit of my own that I usually don't see mentioned here. As always, take with a grain of salt.
 
Letter Writers: The most unpredictable part of the application. So much can go wrong. You might have one that says they only need papers from the class you took with them, and then they might represent your interests different than another professor does. They might say something tone deaf with realizing it (especially a risk if you have international writers). Heck, they might just keep procrastinating turning your letters in even after they have them written (one of my professors didn't do it until a month and a half after my last deadlines.) But they can also sometimes go the extra mile and even email professors you want to work with at other institutions and tell them to be on the look out for your application. In either case, they are kind of a wild card, and you want to do what you can to reduce the possibility of something going wrong. You should do whatever you can to get your letter writers to take a cheat sheet listing your past courses, interests, and accomplishments, or even better yet to give them a copy of your personal statement when you ask for the letter. Additionally, if you have an international writer, you should check if they have written US letters of recommendation before and offer to direct them to people at your department if they have questions about conventions.
 
The Super Advisor: If you are in a position where you still don't have a single adviser picked out, you should be on the lookout for people who you think are really ready in invest in you. Here are some examples of things that a super adviser might do for you (usually spontaneously): probe other professors you've taken courses with and then email you saying that they will write you strong additional recommendation letters if you send them your materials, offer to read every single one of your school specific personal statements, send you random encouraging emails as the process drags on, introduce you to faculty at other departments at conferences so you can get different reactions to your work, will tell you you got in or didn't get in somewhere before the emails go out because they ran into someone and asked.
 
Writing Samples: There are a lot of different ways of being original that don't always involve supporting or attacking someone else's argument. For instance, you could write a paper observing interesting unrecognized structural similarities between a few different arguments, you could write a paper looking for ways that a particular debate is unclear and asking an original question, or you could argue that there are connections between two different debates that haven't been appreciated. Papers doing any of those things will probably stand out some just by virtue of trying to be original in a different way. 
 
Departmental Fit: It doesn't always just mean that your interests mesh well with people who are already at the department. Different departments can also have different values. At one department I visited, I was told that, all else being equal, they especially looked for people who showed promise in constructing creative arguments. At another, I was told that they especially valued applicants whose personalities were conducive to a cooperative and accessible learning environment. There's no advice here really, but its something that I never thought of at all until after I started visiting.

Now that the fall semester is about to begin and prospective applicants are starting to get the pieces of their applications together, I thought I'd share my thoughts on the application/admissions process.  Everything I say should be taken with a grain of salt, since the basis of most of my claims is going to be "impressions" I've gotten from meeting prospective students and professors and watching things unfold on the gradcafe last admissions season.  I'm also going to make claims about "usual cases."  For instance, I'm going to claim that having a high GPA is important, but that's not to say that no one with a low GPA has a chance of getting into a top program.  I'm going to begin by saying something about the different parts of the application and then move on to more general thoughts.  
 
The online application:  You'll have to fill one out for every school you apply to.  They are annoying, and they take a bunch of time, so be prepared to dedicate several hours to filling these things out, particularly if you plan to apply to 10+ schools.  Most of what you're filling in is basic info (name, date of birth, etc.), but some stuff might seem important (there are spaces to fill in different awards you've received, for instance).  I would say go ahead and fill that stuff in, but don't spend too much time getting descriptive.  Submit a CV as a supplementary document, and any of those bonus parts of your application will be in one place.  I doubt the admissions committees spend much time going through the info on the online application.  They'll spend the majority of their time on the other stuff. 
 
GPA:  This is important.  If you're coming straight from undergrad, you might very well struggle with a GPA under, say, 3.7 or so (unless you are coming from a top notch university, you're coming from a school with a reputation for avoiding grade inflation, or you have a justifiable excuse for why your GPA is lower [must be explained by a letter writer]).  The philosophy GPA is even more important than overall.  Unless you attended a super prestigious university, you'll want it to be as close to perfect as possible (and even then, below 3.8 will raise red flags [again, absent justifiable excuses]).  
 
GRE:  This is less important than most people seem to think.  It is probably true that some programs use it as an initial screen, but I also think your scores would have to be pretty low to rule you out.  I also think that the GRE matters more for people coming from less prestigious undergrad institutions (when your letter writers are going to be less familiar, the rest of your application needs to be firing on all cylinders).  For top programs, I would say you should shoot for 160+ for verbal (and ideally 165+) and 155+ for quantitative.  No one cares about your writing score (they have a sample of your actual writing after all).  
 
Statement of purpose:  Just be straightforward and professional.  Describe your interests, but don't actively argue for any positions.  It's a good thing if you can sound relatively sophisticated about your interests.  I think the easiest way to do that is to describe work you've actually done in the past.  That allows you to be generic with your interests, but sophisticated in your elaboration.  So, for example, you could say, "I'm interested in moral philosophy generally, but I've worked primarily on Kantian ethics.  In my senior thesis, I argue for the view that Christine Korsgaard's version of Kantian constructivism must make use of unconstructed normative facts and thus collapses into a form of traditional moral realism."  (I didn't say this in mine [i'm not even sure if I believe what I just said], just using a possible example).  The nice thing about this way of stating your interests is that you aren't pigeon-holing yourself (in this case, as someone only interested in Kantian ethics) since you claim to be interested in ethics in general, but then you can sound like you actually know what you're talking about by describing more sophisticated work you've done.  I also think that naming professors you'd be interested in working with is a good idea, if done well.  Never attempt to fit a professor's interests into your own.  A professor doesn't count as sharing your interests if he/she wrote a paper twenty years ago on a topic of interest to you but never wrote anything else on it again (unless, perhaps, it's a classic paper or something).  It always sounds better if you've actually read the professor's work.  So, go ahead and name names, but just be careful how you do it.  "I would love to work with Peter Singer because he's interested in ethics" is not good enough.  
 
Letters of Recommendation:  I think that these are more important than departments let on.  When I initially visited UNC, I can't tell you how many times I heard, "Oh, you're so-and-so's student" or "How's so-and-so?"  Here, "so-and-so" refers to someone who wrote a letter for a prospective student.  It's innocent enough.  It just so happens that philosophers at top places tend to be friends with philosophers at other top places.  A letter from a friend or, at least, someone the committee knows and respects is more meaningful than a letter from an unknown person.  I'm not saying that it's justified, only that I understand why those letters stand out more.  I hate to say it, but if your letters aren't from relatively well-known philosophers, they had better be glowing.  (And I should be clear here:  Not everyone in my class at UNC had letters from famous philosophers.  I don't want to give that impression.  I'm just saying it helps more than people think.)
 
Writing sample:  You've heard it a million times, but this really is the most important part of the application.  I had long conversations about my writing sample with professors at two of the three departments I visited.  They'll know your writing sample well.  And I don't think it's enough for a writing sample to be nothing more than a literature review.  I also don't think it's enough if the sample only makes one small, original point at the end.  The sample should develop an original argument in favor of some position.  It's perfectly fine if the argument builds off the work of others (not many arguments are *completely* original).  It's just really important for the argument to be in your own voice.  If the paper says, "I'm going to defend the view that X.  Hume argues for A, B, and C as follows...It follows from A, B, and C that X.  Thus, I have defended X," then that's not enough in your own voice (unless you come up with novel ways of defending A, B, and C).  Also, I think whether the topic is "fresh" matters only to the extent that it bears on the originality of what you have to say.  Some topics have been done to death, and so it's hard to say anything particularly original.  But some "hot" topics are so popular that admissions committees have to read 150 samples all about the same topic (which bores them, or so I was told by some admissions committee members).  But no matter what the topic, if you can say something original in a compelling way, you're in with a shot.  I think that originality is probably slightly less important if you are writing on a topic that allows you to show off other philosophical virtues.  So, for example, if you are writing clearly about a really technical area of philosophy, originality is probably a bit less important.  And obviously the paper needs to be structured well and clearly written and exhibit all the usual signs of good writing. 
 
Other things:  I think the strength of one's undergraduate institution matters to the extent that it bears on who is writing letters.  I think it's true that coming from an undergrad institution without a reputation in philosophy is a disadvantage, but only because the letter writers will be unfamiliar to the admissions committee.  Letters have to be much stronger when written by unknown professors.  There's actually a good reason for this.  If Kit Fine writes a letter for an undergrad saying basically, "This student is very good, and I think she'd do well in graduate school," that's sufficient coming from him because NYU produces so many top quality students (and he has a good idea of what it takes to succeed in a top program).  But the admissions committee does not likely put the same confidence in a letter from an unknown professor.
 
Publications might be meaningful if they are in solid professional journals.  Undergrad and grad journals are meaningless (some people think they actually hurt an application; I doubt that's true).  Publishing outside philosophy is pretty much meaningless (unless it's in an area directly connected with your areas of interest).  "Best student" or "Best paper" awards are nice, but won't count for much.  The key is that there's a fundamental distinction between direct and indirect evidence for philosophical ability.  All of the little "extras" like awards are all indirect evidence.  The committee is going to focus on the direct evidence, the most direct of which is your writing sample.  
 
The admissions process is stressful.  I was worried about a lot of things going in.  I went to a relatively weak undergrad institution, but a solid overseas institution for an MSc (but I didn't know how admissions committees in the US would view it). I had a "W" on my transcript.  My GRE writing score was lower than I wanted it to be.  But, on reflection, I think these were things that I shouldn't have worried about.  I think the best advice I could give would be this:  don't sweat the small stuff (or the stuff you can't control).  The writing sample is far and away the most important part of the application.  You're in with a shot if your writing sample is awesome, so if you're going to spend time focusing on something, focus on improving the writing sample.  A less-than-stellar piece of an application can be overcome with a great writing sample, but a mediocre writing sample will keep you out.  Basically, a great writing sample is necessary, but not sufficient for admissions.  
 
I'm happy to answer questions or talk about the process in more detail with any prospective applicants.  Just shoot me a message.

I lose focus if someone around me sneezes. So music is out of the question.
 
Rap is the worst for me. I was raised with it, and start feeling the need to rep my area and other silly things. I should know better than that at this point. 

W/r/t "hot topics," for what it's worth, when I visited WashU, some of the professors there said they got really bored/annoyed reading a hundred writing samples all about the same "hot topic."  I think this past year metaphysical grounding and evolution and morality were both really big.  I think it is more important to say something new and interesting about any topic you want than it is to stick with a topic that is popular in the literature at the moment.  I think the best thing a writing sample can be is original.  You don't want to rehash old arguments in favor of some position.  You don't want to do a massive literature review only to say something small and original at the end.  You want to have an idea (about any topic you want) and develop it in a really clear way. 

Just want to take a moment to endorse departures from the structure outlined in the first post. Listen to your advisers first, of course, but you can also make your own argument for a particular point, argue that another account needs an added part to make it more plausible, or just raise a question. I did the last one and was relatively successful with my applications this year. 
 
If you do stick to the standard form, you need to be sensitive to its weaknesses. You want to put as much argument as you can in, and as little summary as possible and you want to get some of the argument in towards the very beginning. Critical exposition is fine too. I read quite a few writing samples whose primary weakness was that they didn't actually argue until after 15 pages of summary. Additionally, you want to make sure you are arguing against an important, broad, and plausible enough point. I feel as though the last part should be particularly stressed this early in the process. You should ask your adviser about it specifically if you don't think that they are the type of person who would already tell you.

Turned down Cornell, Pitt, and UT. Good luck.

Turned down Cornell, Pitt, and UT. Good luck.

Turned down Cornell, Pitt, and UT. Good luck.

Turned down Cornell, Pitt, and UT. Good luck.

Turned down Cornell, Pitt, and UT. Good luck.

Well admissions season over for me. Whew.

Well admissions season over for me. Whew.

I wonder when Rutgers will drop acceptances? It looks like they've come via e-mail in the past...

Having spent eight weeks once exclusively reading the greater logic, I'd be very curious to hear how exactly its about logic. Also.. doesn't Hegel actually say you have to basically accept the phenomenology to even have the framework in place to read greater logic? I definitely feel like that shouldn't be required to get logic... 

what do you mean it's totally a book about logic. too much for ur "abstract understanding" huh? that's okay the rigors of speculative thought aren't for everyone

The "rigors" oh that's precious.