ianfaircloud

Thanks, Jac!

This is a legitimate worry about the ranking of MA programs. Here's the deal. Go somewhere where there are great philosophers who work in your area of interest. Contact current students to see if those philosophers write letters and if the students who work with them actually get into good PhD programs. Pay attention to whether everybody from a program is coming out of, e.g., metaphysics, or if people are doing well from all areas of philosophy (across the discipline). DO look at placement records, because they are at least suggestive. They also indicate the kinds of people with whom you'll study, and that's important! In the US, the top MA programs are probably Brandeis, Tufts, Georgia State, and UW Milwaukee (in no particular order of strength). The latter two are great, because they fund you pretty well. The first two offer moderate funding but a great city in which to study philosophy. Brandeis has one or two full scholarships per year. There are other great MA programs in the US. Certainly Northern Illinois University has done well over the years. Also Virginia Tech is good. UMSL is good. There are still others that don't immediately come to mind. The rule here is to look at placement records and try to find a good fit. But since these are competitive programs, you might feel lucky being admitted to any of them. Good luck.

You don't have to have any publications or patents or anything crazy like that. They're looking for a concise summary of where you went to school, any academic achievements (Honors list), and perhaps some work history. But yeah, most of us didn't publish anything anywhere when we applied. And look, publishing for your undergraduate journal just isn't very important to philosophers. ANYBODY can do that, frankly. I think it's great that undergrads publish their journals. I respect it a lot. But virtually anybody can get published in an undergraduate journal. The truth is that philosophers don't generally give a shit about any of this stuff. The problem is that these graduate schools sort of force the CV requirement. I think some philosophers will read them and care. But I just don't see them making a real difference in applications. Still, since they're there, you should do them right and well. If you won some philosophical writing award or something, that's gonna look really nice and it's going to set the tone as the reader looks through your materials.

This is a FANTASTIC QUESTION. For PhD applicants, I believe that the subject of the writing sample can make a crucial difference in the success of an applicant! Remember that the people who read your sample are thinking, "Would this person fit in here? Who would this person work with? Could I advise this person? Do I understand this paper? Do I know, based on my reading of the literature, that this person understands these difficult issues? Am I well-positioned to evaluate this candidate?" Accordingly, you should strive to select a subject matter that is: 1. accessible to a lot of potential readers (relevant philosophers at the departments to which you're applying); 2. not so narrow as to exclude too many readers or suggest that you want to work on something so narrow that nobody in the department could advise you or would want to advise you; 3. not in an area that lies outside your areas of interest (because again, the reader is selecting people with whom s/he would actually want to work; and readers are selected according to the subject matter of the paper); and, 4. not in an unusual area of philosophy, unless you are absolutely sure that you want to do that kind of philosophy. Let me give you an example. I wrote a paper on evolutionary psychology and metaethics. That's a hot topic right now, but the problem is that it's an empirically-based area. It's sciency. It's biology. People see it and think philosophy of biology. They think niche interest. My application only got a serious look from one department (Madison) that at the time had very serious people thinking about both biology and metaethics. Otherwise, I think the paper relied on too many empirical claims, and the bottom line is that people thought that I wanted to study biology for six years in a PhD program. Really, my interest was metaethics. I would have been better served by writing a paper more purely philosophical and more accessible to people working in value theory more generally.

It's not universally the case, as of last year. But it's becoming almost universal. For what it's worth, in 2014, I believe six departments of the T20 required official transcripts mailed to the university.

Your chances of admission to strong PhD programs are always low, even if you're an outstanding candidate. I still think it's worth the try. What I see in your case is that you have a solid and focused resume; you know what you want. That's a very good thing, because these departments really like people who are focused. Just based on what I'm reading, you look like a solid candidate. What I can't see here is whether you attended a strong undergraduate institution and whether your letter-writers are people known in the philosophy world. To gain admission to a top PhD program, it's almost necessary that at least one of your letter-writers be (well-)known among those who will evaluate your application. Also, I can't see your writing sample. But your writing sample must be fantastic. It has to be very, very strong. It sounds like maybe you produce good work.

Every philosophy department will consider applicants who did work in non-philosophy areas. In fact, an MA in political theory could put you in a better position in some cases, particularly if you're thinking about political philosophy and you're applying to a program that's strong in that area.

Consider all of them, but reduce the list to those to which you will apply. Apply only to programs which you would consider attending. Don't apply to so many programs that you can't submit quality and tailored applications to each. Don't apply to so many that you can't afford the fees. Outside of these restrictions, I would apply to as many as possible.

Quick thought on this. A lot of people believe that terminal MAs are the best place to study philosophy on the way to the PhD. Programs that offer both the terminal MA and the PhD, the thought goes, cannot devote as much attention to the MA students as would be devoted to them in a program without PhD students. That's the thought. It sounds right to me, and a lot of smart people (Brian Leiter) think so, too. Based on what I heard from you, I recommend that you prioritize the MA programs that don't offer the PhD.

Gap years are fine. From what I understand, what can hurt a little is anything on your application that sends the message that you're not sure where you want to be. So if you took time in your gap year(s) to attend graduate school completely unrelated to philosophy, that could make a small difference. I think, in the end, these things make little difference. What they want to see are strong letters and a background of formal study of philosophy (typically a degree in philosophy), in addition to an extremely strong writing sample, solid grades, and decent scores (roughly in that order). A gap year may *help* you, if you use it to make a better application.

MA as a stepping stone can help, but it doesn't always help. There are a lot of factors here (which program, what area of interest, philosophical potential of the applicant, luck). I don't get the feeling that MA students as a rule are scrutinized more by PhD admission committees than non-MA students. There's a great Leiter post about this; it's a few years old now. Someone could Google that and post the link here. Philosophers on admission committees don't get too hung up on how much a student has already been molded. They care about philosophical potential. They want people who will produce great work (and who don't have really significant personal or professional flaws).

The answer is no, there is no difference.

Straight to PhD: if you believe that you will get admitted to the program of your choice. Wait a year: if you think that all you need to maximize your chances is more time. More time to do what? To write a better sample. To seek better letters. To retake the GRE. Etc. MA first: If you think you need any of the things that the MA programs typically provide. See the posts linked below. Two helpful posts on this site, both having to do with reasons to get an MA:

Boa, for what it's worth, as I understand it, it's slightly easier, generally speaking, all other things held equal, for an American student to get admitted to Oxford's DPhil than for an American student to get admitted to a similarly-prestigious PhD program in the United States. I say this based only on my experience. Some of this has to do with funding options, just from what little I understand about applying to Oxford.

Why are you considering Toronto? It's certainly not the best place to do the MA as a stepping stone to the PhD. But maybe you have reasons in favor of Toronto. What are you looking for in a master's program? What's important to you? Funding? Chance of admission to PhD? Chance of admission to strong PhD? It sounds like readiness matters to you. In my view, if you make it to a top-PhD program, it's extremely unlikely that you weren't ready, in the important sense. But maybe you mean something else by readiness ("to make sure [you're] ready").

This question (or variations of it, e.g. "MA without the PhD") has been addressed quite a few times, with great responses each time (that I've seen the question). But this site is so incredibly disorganized that I can't find the post. My thoughts in brief: Yes, a master's degree without the terminal degree in philosophy may be worth it to some people. I'm sure that doesn't surprise you. The reasons: (a) intrinsic value of learning philosophy; (b) time and place to explore the field further, to learn whether you're sure that it's not right for you; (c) stepping stone to non-philosophy graduate degree, e.g. neuroscience, political theory, law, etc.

"Fame" isn't really important, but "reputation" is important. If your letter-writer has no reputation (that's not the same thing as a bad reputation), then no matter how strong the letter is, it may not help as much as even a "good" letter from someone with a reputation. The reason is simply that the reader of that letter has maybe no idea whether the letter-writer is qualified to recommend you to the reader. Best to find a letter writer who has a reputation or an association with a reputable institution. The best letter would be from a philosopher who has an amazing reputation among philosophers, who also knows you and your work very well, thinks you're amazing, thinks your work is amazing, and can and does communicate that through the letter. That's the best letter. Subtract any of those elements, and the letter gets worse. Watch out for either of the following cases: 1) Three letters with very strong content (i.e. detailed, long letters that show familiarity with your work, praise your work in the right way, show that you have philosophical potential) but from absolutely unknown people with no ties to reputable institutions. Or worse: written by non-philosophers. 2) Three letters from people with ties to reputable institutions. But those letters are poorly written. Or they don't show familiarity with you or your work. They're short letters. They say nothing negative, but they say very little about your potential. Or worse: the letters make you sound good but average-- not special. I think it's very unlikely that a letter would receive less credit because it was written by a philosopher whose work is controversial or unpopular, unless the reason the person's work is unpopular (among philosophers) is that the work demonstrates a lack of understanding of philosophy or otherwise diminishes the letter-writer's credibility. Don't think: Is the person controversial? Think: Is the person disrespected?

This data may be helpful: https://faircloudblog.wordpress.com/philosophy-admissions-survey/.

D-NixRT: In my view, the ### score is more helpful than the % score. A lot of professors are pretty ignorant about how to use scores. They see 160+, and they think that's a good score. So in my view, shoot for 160 or better. The 67% could be a liability. Hard to say. Though schools don't say so, they do often use scores as a way to filter applications. They receive so many applications and have less time to consider them than they would like. Some individual professors have their own ways of evaluating scores. I know a few professors who think standardized test scores are worthless as an indicator of philosophical potential. Think of the score as just the way you get your foot in the door. It doesn't matter that you got a 165 instead of a 170 on Verbal. What might matter is that you got a 155 on Verbal, which might put you below the cut-off for some programs. Again, schools never say they have a cut-off. It's not a formal cut-off. But there are cut-offs. Once you survive the initial cut, the importance of the score goes away. Professors turn their attention toward the substantive pieces, like the writing sample and letters. If I were you, I'd study the Verbal a bit more and retake. We just don't know how your score will affect you, so in the interest of avoiding unnecessary risks to your application, I'd retake.

Reasons that MAs help some people get into strong PhD programs, roughly in descending order of weight: 1. Better letters (because faculty are better known and understand how to write letters that help in the process, because you cultivate a few valuable relationships with good philosophers) 2. Better writing sample (because more time to prepare it, because a community of faculty and student help, because more mature understanding of field/area of interest) 3. Credential (because you came from lesser known institution, because the MA is a well known institution, because the MA shows a different level of seriousness in the candidate) 4. Help with application (because you have a community of people who can give better guidance) 5. Other factors that are much less important: strong showing on the transcript (a 4.0 on the MA transcript); actual increased understanding/become a better student of philosophy; time to do better on the GRE And then there are other reasons to do the MA that have nothing to do with getting into a strong PhD program: 1. Study philosophy at a high level 2. Give yourself time to consider the range of career options available to you; decide whether philosophy is right for you 3. Teach (as an adjunct professor at a community college, at a high school, etc.)

Let's begin by pointing out that the costs to you of applying are the application fee, the GRE score, the time that it takes to file an application, and (if you'd like to include it) the time that it takes for your letter writers to submit letters. These aren't particularly high costs, in my view. This is a low-risk situation. But choosing a graduate program is a huge decision that will change your life, for better or worse. I, frankly, was shocked and appalled that the University of Colorado Boulder refused to reimburse students who paid to have GRE scores sent, only to be told (when it was too late) that their applications would not be considered. That's the university, not the department. However, in my own interaction with people at the Philosophy department, I personally did not see a lot of concern for those of us who were mistreated by the university. (To be fair, the department had bigger problems. And we're talking only about my loss of ~$30 plus whatever incidental losses I incurred from planning an application. And the costs of everybody else situated similarly.) But again, I did not see a lot of concern from the Philosophy department for those who were mistreated as a result of the department's late decision not to consider applications. Has the department completely recovered? What are the lasting effects of the turmoil recently experienced there? How do current students feel about things? Notice that in terms of prestige, for what it's worth, the department took a hit. There's no question about that. I agree with qualiafreak that it's probably worth applying. Small risk. Chance of reward, in the case that you are admitted and are convinced that the department is a good place to study philosophy right now. If I were privileged to choose among multiple offers of admission, the recent turmoil at Boulder would be a factor in my decision.

Philstudent1991 has an interesting suggestion. I agree with it, unless you think that *after* producing the writing sample, etc., you'd have the application you need to do well (well enough) in PhD admissions. Here's another way to put Philstudent's point (possibly): If you're going to jump to an MA before the PhD, might as well apply now to MA programs, because they tend to be less selective than PhD programs anyway. Maybe you won't need a perfect sample to go somewhere solid for an MA. That's probably not exactly what Philstudent meant, but I think it's a decent point. But to the bigger question: You're better off taking a year to polish a writing sample. Actually that might be the *best* thing you can do. It may be that you really don't need the MA, but that you simply need a year to prepare an application. No admission committee will worry about your year off. In fact, I think it's perfectly legitimate to explain that you took the year to prepare applications. They know how difficult this is. The writing sample, letters, and academic pedigree are really helpful. It's helpful to have attended a legitimate, known school with a serious philosophy department (more than a few philosophers). It's not quite as important that the school be high-ranked. The writing sample is crucial. It must be not just great, but also impressive in order to gain admission to a "top" PhD program. It has to be fantastic. And the letters almost have to be from known philosophers who can say very good things about you in great detail. Known, understood pretty broadly. Chances are that if you're at a legitimate, larger institution and have won an award there (as I understood you are, and you have), you'll be OK in the letters department! So what you need now is a year to produce an amazing writing sample with the help of a trusted professor. I actually think you're in great shape. The numbers are strong, with the 3.88. Sounds like you have great potential. Good luck to you.

Here's a simple (maybe too simple) answer. You sound like a good candidate for a master's program in philosophy. Master's programs generally offer people an opportunity either to prove that their undergraduate experience doesn't accurately reflect their philosophical potential or to pad the resume by demonstrating philosophical potential at a master's program. Candidates include people with little background in philosophy, people who went to bad schools, or people who didn't have strong grades. You seem like an ideal candidate, if I read your situation correctly. You did fairly well in your philosophy classes. You attended a strong undergraduate institution. You kept your ahead above water, despite serious personal challenges. In my experience, MA students from stronger undergraduate institutions tend to do better (generally) in PhD admissions. The fact that you have a credible and convincing explanation of your lower grades -- and the fact that the worst grades weren't in philosophy -- are good reasons that your grades may be explained away by a good letter-writer. Do you have a good relationship with any philosopher from this public Ivy? Would this person retell the same story that you told us? Would this person say that you have great philosophical potential? I think this story could have a happy ending. Good luck to you.

One more thing: I should say that Oxford's BPhil looks very interesting to me. I've heard vague recommendations, but maybe someone who has experienced the program directly can offer comment.

Your question requires a generalization about American programs. In my experience, the curricula (including graduation requirements, courses offered, etc.) vary widely across American programs. For that reason it's difficult to generalize. Just to speak in terms of program requirements, some American programs are very flexible with requirements, while others are more specific. I get the impression that larger programs typically have more specific requirements. To my knowledge, the most flexible program is Brandeis's. Tufts's is somewhat flexible. Georgia State's program requirements are quite specific. So even in terms of program requirements, there is no way to generalize about American programs. There's only one really important thing that I can think to mention here: not all American programs require either a thesis or an exam. I.e. some programs require neither of these things. To my knowledge, this is fairly unique to some American programs. I've written elsewhere that I think there are advantages to the flexibility of such programs. Some people do better under these conditions.