SamStone

Yea, what both of you are saying makes sense. Thanks for the helpful responses. Especially the thoughts on the tone of one's writing.. Its interesting—and encouraging—that you both think there aren't really any specific topics that would be poor choices, so long as they are written and argued well. For some reason I got the feeling that some might be worse choices just based on the topic itself.

Yea, for me it was a tough call deciding to do another MA. But I will say that without my experience working theology I would not have even been equipped to get into a philosophy MA program. So, in that sense, theology on its own is enough background to switch fields...just probably not to the place you want to be in (a phd program), since it means spending another two years in school (though, some of the Canadian MA programs are only 1 year, correct?).

Thats true, they wouldn't be a tie breaker (at least I would hope not)

Sure, 90th percentile may not be "very low" overall. But it might be considered low in the case of various humanities applications, since topics like religion, theology, or philosophy require more "verbal" skills than quantitative ones. If I had scored lower than 90th on the verbal section, I would have taken it again. But the OPs score seems good enough to not cause any worry from any admission committee.

What, if any, are any topics that you think would be "risky" topics to use for your writing sample? I realize that taking any strong stance in an unpopular direction is a chancy, but are there general topics that seem more risky than others? For instance, is taking a pragmatist stance in the philosophy of science a good/bad idea? Does writing a history paper on Schelling, Fichte, or Hegel, in itself, have an effect on your chances of getting in? How about arguing that philosophers don't pay proper heed to the details of quantum physics? etc. Of course, there are exceptions—every applicant wants to write something to fits (at least somewhat) within their field of interest, and some departments will be excited about what others will not—but I'm just wondering if people think any topic is specifically "dangerous"...

I'd second what gughok said: philosophy phd programs usually require admits to have done quite a bit of philosophical work in the past. I would imagine that this is because there are a lot of applicants and the process is very competitive—that means that many applicants come from philosophical backgrounds, and have great philosophical writing samples. Thus, there is more of a risk in admitting students who may not be sure (or at least haven't proven their surety) that they are dedicated to philosophy. Of course, that is not to say that you can't have shown you love of the field, and have a great writing sample, etc. It is just a really difficult process. I also have an MA in theology, and wanted to go get my phd in philosophy...I applied to a few schools and didn't get accepted for the phd programs. However, I was admitted to several MA programs and decided to take that route...I am finishing my program in the spring. While my case may not be the standard—again, I wouldn't think it'd be impossible to make the switch directly from theology MA to philosophy phd. But what I can say is that the overlap between philosophy and theology would not really be enough, on its own, to convince a department that you are ready for a phd in philosophy. I still love theology, and am really loving philosophy, but after going through the MA it has become much more obvious that the fields are quite different in terms of academic expectations. What's even more maddening is that even after getting my MA I am not guaranteed to get into a phd program! haha (btw, what are you working on in theology?)

Who are examples of philosophers that do the work you are talking about? I think Nietzsche, James, Wittgenstein, Heidegger, Rorty, Pippin, Anidjar, Burge, and Soames could all be taken as examples of philosophers philosophizing about the aims/methods of philosophy. But all of those figures do it in completely different ways. So what style are you talking about here?

What is your background in? And how much experience do you have in philosophy? Those two pieces of information would really help in replying with some advice on what programs you should be applying to... I am currently finishing at one of the PGR-mentioned programs, and from my experience many of the students don't have undergraduate degrees in philosophy—if they do, they come from lesser-known colleges and want to improve their chances of getting in to great PhD programs. The programs that were referred to as the "high-ranked" MA programs (though there is no official ranking as far as I know) when I was applying two years ago are, in no particular order: Northern Illinois University, Brandeis, Georgia State, Tufts, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Western Michigan, and Virginia Tech. If you're goal is to get into a top phd program, then I would definitely recommend applying to many—if not all—of those. But there are also other good programs to look into. For instance, UM-STL, SFSU, LSU, Cal-State LA. The reason why those programs is double. First, the faculty that teach at the "top" MA programs are most-likely well known, they are very active in their fields (publishing, conferences, etc.), and many of them have probably also taught at other PhD programs in the past. Second, because of the first reason the schools can, as you mentioned, admit the most promising students. That said, I would add that "most promising" can mean many different things to different departments—some programs feel that the 'most promising' students are not necessarily the ones that come from amazing undergrad situations but are students that have an obvious intensity of interest and have potential to grow. (See, for instance, Robert Schwartz's from UWM, post here: http://schwitzsplinters.blogspot.com/2009/09/applying-to-ma-programs-in-philosophy.html). Regarding funding: a high percentage of these programs have great funding opportunities. So I don't know exactly what you mean that "funding looks scarce." While it is true that Tufts and Brandeis are known for costing quite a bit...I don't think that those two serve as the standard. For example, NIU, UWM, GSU all offer funding through TA-ships, which (I think) most students admitted receive. Also: V-Tech, SFSU, and CSLA (and I think LSU) offer funding, though maybe not as much as the others. What makes you skeptical in this regard? Sure, the programs that offer funding don't pay a ton of money, but as far as MA-level study the money is totally live-able...how much would be necessary for it not being "scarce"? (Philosophy isn't necessarily known for leading to high-paying jobs...) Anyway, I don't see why you shouldn't apply to several of the MA programs, if you have the money to apply to more than a few. I didn't have a background in philosophy and I was accepted into 3 of the 7 that I applied to. I would just recommend making sure your writing sample and letters of recommendation are promising.

I would imagine that if you already know you that you are planning to apply to philosophy PhD programs, that you would/should focus on the philosophical aspects of political theory while working on your current MA. Of course, you probably won't be able to do only philosophical work, right? But is it possible where you are at to emphasize getting an excellent grasp of the historical development, transformation of ideas, etc. of the period of philosophy you are interested in...I realize that Kant-Hegel-Heidegger is a huge period of time. But if you are interested in the philosophy between Kant and Hegel, then, for example, could you study Rousseau through the Napoleonic wars and the effect they had the rest of Europe? It seems that if you took a historical approach to you political theory studies, then you would be well prepared to shift back to studying philosophy. But you also mention the possibility of quitting your political theory MA now, and just apply to philosophy MA and PhD programs...is that because you aren't really sure you care about political theory as much as you had thought, or just because you didn't want to hurt your chances of getting into a philosophy PhD program? If it is the former, does it feel like you will be wasting the next year and a half finishing the degree?

I am planning on applying to 15 schools. From what I have been told, 10-15 applications is a good way to go. However, I have also been advised to only use 5-7 of my 15 applications to top-20 programs. As I have my list of schools now, 9 are in the top 20. So I will mostly likely be rearranging my list, since having a wider range of schools (I'm assuming) will raise the possibility of getting some (or at least one) acceptance. As people have already suggested, I think it is a really good move to get advice from you advisor, or from the professors that are writing your letters of recommendation. Not only could they possibly help balance out your list—I had originally had a few schools on my list, that, when my advisor asked why I wanted to go there, I realized I shouldn't be applying to them—but they also might have some suggestions of schools to apply to that you hadn't already seriously considered.

Hey all! I thought I'd introduce myself. I'm in the process of finishing up my MA in philosophy at one of the so-called T7 programs. My previous degrees are in art (BFA) and theology (MA). My interests are listed in my signature, so I won't mention them here. I'll be applying to philosophy PhD programs this year...I am still in the process of composing my list of schools, but I will definitely be applying to: Yale, Harvard, Columbia, Pitt, U-Chicago, Northwestern, UT-Austin, UC-Berkeley, UC-Riverside and UC-San Diego

Hey—I haven't been active this year, but have been checking in now and then to see how acceptances are going. I am currently a student at UW-Milwaukee and, though I'm not informed on the decision making process regarding applications, I have heard something about the timing of sending out decisions. From what I know, there are university-wide fellowships that each graduate department in the university nominates some students for each spring; and, if the any of the philosophy department's students receives an award, then it brings in more funding to the program. And the additional funding (or lack thereof) allows the department to admit a greater (or lesser) amount of students for the following school year. That said, the university says that they make decisions about the fellowships in "the middle of March"—so the decisions should probably be come out very soon. Also, since spring break is next week, it could be that the University's fellowship notices will be released before the break. But if not: info may not come until the week following spring break. Yet, of course, there may be (and probably are) other factors at play in the timing of the department releasing acceptance decisions. Either way, good luck to everyone. And if you get accepted and want to DM me, feel free. (I don't check the site that often, but if I get a message I'll reply as soon as possible.)

Exactly, looking at all his volumes is too daunting for me at this point. I wish I had time to read through the whole series; but maybe it is not a bad idea just to read the last couple that cover more recent history.... Thanks! This is great advice. I do have a somewhat decent idea of 20th century analytic movements, but I think you are right that what I should be looking for is something like Soames' Philosophical Analysis. I hadn't looked at these before and I am really interested...one thing I can't tell: does his account deal much with the historical/social context of the philosophers and the concepts, or does he more deal with the historical development and relationship of the philosophies and concepts alone? I am also now interested in the 5-volume work he is currently working on (though I probably shouldn't start with that). Yea, that was my hesitation towards his work. I feel like it would be fun to read, but that I would not be learning so much, but instead re-learning what I had heard before. You know, I was about to just order Berlin's work when I first started thinking that I should get a better handle on the history, but then I hesitated because it seems like his work is more focused on the broader intellectual history (rather than specifically philosophical topics). I imagined his work to be closer to Taylor's A Secular Age rather than something like Soames' book. Does that sound correct? Either way, Berlin's books seem interesting and I feel like I'm bound to get to them at some point.

What are the best books on the history of western philosophy that you have read? I feel like I have a pretty good grasp and am fairly competent when it comes to the general movements throughout the history of philosophy, but I am looking to find a closer account that still captures the broad scope. I did not major in philosophy in undergrad...so I have never been held accountable by any means when it comes to philosophy's history. So what books or authors are recommendable or a really good place to start strengthening this weakness of mine? Copleston? Kenny? Gottlieb? Stumpf? Scruton? Jones? I know some of the books are massive 1000+pp books or are mutli-volume sets, so I don't have time to start reading through more than one at a time. Where would you begin?

The summer has been great...and I just made it to Milwaukee this week! Before the move I mostly spent time reading and relaxing during my final weeks in LA. The drive across the country was fun, but it took longer than I expected—the trailer had a little more weight that I was expecting and on some of the big hilly areas we could only get the truck up to 35 mph. My wife and I have been slowly getting settled into our apartment here and getting to know the neighborhood; it seems really great so far (walking distance to cafe, bookstore, restaurants, etc.) but we'll see how different it feels once its covered in a few feet of snow. hah. I also went over to UW-M and saw the department, and met a couple of the people who were there. Overall things are looking good now that the move is done...

I'm not sure if these are the two that have been the *most* influential, but these two books really had an impact on me: Alicia Juarrero's, "Dynamics in Action: Intentional Behavior as a Complex System" and Alva Noë's, "Action in Perception" (however, I like his "Varieties of Presence" better...but the former had more of a direct influence on my thinking)

Hegelhating, Thanks for the recommendations! I'll definitely add those to my to-read list. hopefully I'll be able to get to them at some point soon. The God of Metaphysics sounds like the place I would start with those books.

Earlier this month I finished an MA in Theology and in September I am going to begin an MA in Philosophy. I decided to spend the summer reading various accounts of the ways religion/theology helped to shape the rise of Modernity as well as how it was transformed in a reciprocal way. I chose five books to read: Charles Taylor, A Secular Age Michael Allen Gillespie, The Theological Origins of Modernity J. Kameron Carter, Race: A Theological Account Gary Dorrien, Kantian Reason and Hegelian Spirit: The Idealistic Logic of Modern Theology Gil Anidjar, Blood: A Critique of Christianity They are all pretty long books (the shortest of them is 300 pp), but I am almost through with A Secular Age. I am not sure which I will begin next, but I am leaning towards Carter's Race. I am curious if anyone has any recommendations of books that might fit into this topic. I definitely won't have time to read any more than these this summer, but I am very interested in the history of philosophy, especially as it relates to religion and theology. Anyone else plan out reading for the summer? Or anyone else reading anything good this summer...even if there wasn't a big theme behind the choice?

I might recommend Cosmopolis by Stephen Toulmin. I thought it was a really fun book when I read it...pretty entry-level and deals with topics that don't seem too restricted to philosophical topics (helpful for someone who isn't particularly interested in the technical aspects of philosophy).

Ok i think I answered the second question by looking around old posts: -Miami University Ohio -University of Wisconsin (Milwaukee) -Georgia State University -Brandeis -University of Houston -Northern Illinois University -Texas A&M -Virginia Tech -Western Michigan -University of Oregon (if offered teaching fellowship) -Texas Tech -Louisiana State University Am I missing any??

I have, I think, a pretty easy question to answer: Do the potentially funded MA programs—GSU, WMU, NIU, UWM—offer the same sort of funding opportunities to international students? I have a friend hoping to apply but is having a hard time finding out which US schools offer funding to international students residents. Also, I know I had seen someone post one before, but does anyone have a larger list of the MA programs that offer good funding packages (e.g., full or large tuition remission, paid TA-ship, etc.)?

NIU For financial reasons alone—and since these are the only aspects you offer as points of consideration—I would choose NIU. Why take out a loan or, if you have money or someone willing to pay the bill for you, why use it on a two year degree that will be over before you even know it. Both programs are great! In addition, Boston is expense and Dekalb is not. So I'd save the money or the debt until you are working on your PhD or in the job market...unless you really think 2 years at Brandeis will put you that much further ahead where the debt/money would cease to be an issue in the future. But on the issue of location...I don't know how you are when it comes to being happy with where you are living—whether you would be more successful in a small town or a city. Dekalb is not too far from Chicago and, if I'm not mistaken, you can take the train into the city; but it is far enough away that you probably wouldn't go into the city that often. On this issue I would probably choose NIU as well...though Boston would be fun, I know I would become a much stronger, focused student were I to study in a small-ish town compared to a city like Boston. I've lived in major cities and wouldn't mind a break from them, ha. But this may not be the case for you, if not, maybe Brandeis is the better choice. With the issue of placement: what schools are you planning on applying to for PhD, have you thought about that yet. If so, and Brandeis has placed students at those schools and NIU hasn't, then you should choose Brandeis. But NIU has a good placement record as well, so maybe its a matter of comparing the records according to which schools you are interested in rather the way people rank them. But beyond these reasons, I have known two people to go through the program at NIU and they both had only good things to say about their time there. If I had to make this decision, I would try to remember that two years is a really short program...you pretty much have one solid year of course work, getting to know professors, etc., and then one year of writing a great WS and applying for a PhD. Are their any faculty at either school that you are particularly excited about? As an aside: I was actually really excited about both Brandeis and NIU...but I somehow never heard back one way or the other from these departments. Though I assumed I was rejected, I was pretty surprised that neither had bothered to notify me. I was going to call the departments, but by then I had gotten a an offer I was willing to accept from a different school so I didn't even bother...

I'll be there! I'm already having trouble trying to decide which courses to take in the fall! though, Monadology had mentioned that the Berkeley seminar was great

Anyone else going to UW-Milwaukee? I haven't seen many posts about it (maybe i missed them), and was curious if anyone else on the board accepted an offer from them?

I was wondering what graduate seminars are like in an MA setting—in terms of workload (e.g., how many books are typically assigned), schedule, paper length expectations, etc. I am just finishing an MA at Fuller Seminary and have taken PhD seminars here...I am just wondering how different a seminar in an MA-only setting might be. I am assuming that the seminars are not terribly different, but there would probably be some degree of difference since the purpose of an MA and PhD differ. Also, Fuller is on the quarter system, so classes are only 10 weeks long and seem to fly by. So I guess I'm trying to just get a picture of what my school life will look like in the fall. Anyone with an MA (or MA seminar experience) have any thoughts?