ianfaircloud

Yes, the PGR is controversial. But it's very influential, and I think most people respect the results as a rough indicator of faculty quality. More importantly, for the purposes of this post, I think we're wanting to know what the effect of the PGR will be. Oh, and I'll mention again: Prof. Leiter brought on someone who many of us trust and respect, Prof. Berit Brogaard. Since she's co-editor, I assume she contributed in a big way and probably offered some oversight. Prof. Brogaard was an excellent custodian of the graduate program at UMSL before she left for University of Miami. From my own communication with her, I can say only good things. Regarding Prof. Leiter, I have to say that I've had only good experiences of him. I know people like to complain about him, and maybe you have good reasons to complain. I don't want to question you or your conclusion. I just want to say that I have had some very nice communication with him over the last several years. He has offered me free advice and valuable encouragement, and I wish that others could experience that side of him.

SLU tied for 47th with three other programs. I'm having trouble remembering exactly who was in the T50, but I thought Boston University was in the T50. It's not now. But I thought it was. Maybe someone can shed light on this.

By the way, I guess Brian Leiter published this a month or so ago (I may be wrong about that) and didn't update the main website until very recently (or else I simply didn't see it until now, in which case this whole thread is quite embarrassing). But considering how little I've heard about it, maybe it will actually come as news to some people on here. Edit: Leiter published some of this on the blog, but this is the first full publication of the results. On Jan. 29, Leiter noted on his blog that it was not quite finished.

http://www.philosophicalgourmet.com/overall.asp Do the poll. Then read on... Some big changes: University of Chicago falls out of the T20. UCLA and Berkeley are now top-ten. MIT and UNC are out of the top ten. MIT, of course, lost Rae Langton and Richard Holton. Saint Louis University joins the top-fifty for the first time. University of Pennsylvania's department becomes the only Ivy League department with a graduate program in philosophy that is not in the top-thirty (at #31). This isn't surprising, because the department hasn't added enough strong people, and because it lost Paul Guyer to Brown. University of Connecticut moves from 50 to 37! Colorado Boulder moves from 24 to 31. This, too, isn't surprising, given recent events. Washington Seattle and Boston University dropped out of the T50. (edited) Regarding SLU, this is a long-overdue promotion. SLU has a very strong cohort of medievalists and philosophers of religion, in my view, and it really fills a gap in the philosophical community. Thoughts? What's the most surprising change in the PGR? Was this worth the editors' time? What's the most exciting change? I couldn't figure out how to allow a poll with open questions, so if you answer "other", please feel free to offer your response below.

1. Ask people to tell you which questions they would ask, if they were in your position. 2. Ask people how to read the placement record. Ask a lot of details about the placement. Ask whether one or two professors tend to generate the most job offers. Ask whether one or two areas of interest do particularly well or poorly in placement. 3. What percent of students do well, poorly, drop out, etc.? Craft this question tactfully. 4. What do you think of the program? Why did you choose this program? 5. What are the drawbacks to choosing this program? 6. Do students work together a lot? Do they hang out together? Do they share work with each other? Do they review each other's work? Do they compete with each other? Does the program feel big or small? How much do you interact with undergraduate students? What's the quality of the undergraduate population? 7. Are there weak students in the program? (Do not name them. It's a yes or no question.) 8. Are there weak professors? (This question must be asked over the phone/Facetime/in person.) Which ones are weaker? Who works the most with students? Who works the least? (You ought to get very, very clear answers here. Do not accept vague answers. If you have to, ask about every single professor in the department with whom you may work.) 9. What's the trajectory of the department? New hires soon? New retirements? Program improving? In decline? (It's a question of speculation, but that's OK. People are surprisingly good at predicting these things.) 10. Is there department infighting? Do you hear bad things about professors from other professors? Is there department tension? Does the department get along with the administration? Is the department supported by the rest of the school? Note: These are questions for grad students. They sound sort of abrasive, but you may invest a lot in the program. You deserve to have this information. I can't overstate the importance of checking out every professor. Get a clear indication about every single professor with whom you may work. Ask them how they were tenured. Were they tenured 30 years ago? Was it a mistake to give them tenure? Do they mostly take up space? You should figure this out!

So much to say to this. I have a master's in philosophy and specialized in normative branches in the field (political, ethics, metaethics). I TAed Biomedical Ethics as an MA in philosophy. Now I'm getting a JD and an MBE (Master of Bioethics) at University of Pennsylvania. My initial reaction is that you ought not to get a master's in bioethics. The question you raise is solidly philosophy of psychology, cognitive science, or philosophy of mind. (These aren't my areas.) There are bioethics programs with philosophers on faculty, philosophers who can help you on these questions. But the thrust of most bioethics programs is bio rather than ethics. By that I mean that you're right to think that the focus is practical questions in medicine. Also, in my experience, many programs are heavily oriented toward policy questions. You may be wondering why I'm bothering with it. Well, Penn Bioethics is quite good, perhaps the best. I already have an MA in philosophy. And I think bioethics could use more philosophers/ethicists who happen to be interested in medical ethics. Right now, the field has plenty of biologists or doctors who happen to be interested in ethics. Every Kantian philosopher in ethics knows that (and I mean this in the friendliest sense possible) biologists, scientists, and doctors too often are (how do I say?) narrow-mindedly utilitarian, when it comes to ethics. Whew! That's bound to be controversial. But I think it's true. If you're going to pursue a master's, my initial reaction is that you ought to take a look at the MA programs at Tufts and Georgia State. Both excel in philosophy of mind or cognitive science. It sounds like you're interested in what's called moral psychology. (I'm not trying to be condescending. But I think that's what you're talking about, maybe.) Look that up on Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Is that about right? This is an amazing area full of growth and exciting developments. It's the new frontier in ethics and metaethics (maybe). Do Washington University in St. Louis or University of Wisconsin Madison offer MA programs for someone with your narrow interests? Either would be good for this. I have a friend at WUSTL's grad program who studies moral psychology. (Edit: I think the answer is no. But I always wonder whether a special request may be honored, particularly when the request comes from someone who is quite serious.)

Contact the departments to which you plan to apply. Graduate schools care more about receiving official transcripts, even if incomplete, than they do about receiving complete ones. My guess is that most schools will permit you to submit the complete transcript later, provided you are able to give them very good reason to believe that you actually earned the degree. As a rule, schools don't like excluding people because of factors outside their control.

Oh, I didn't take you to mean that. I took you to be saying that perhaps at an early stage, a couple of Bs on a transcript won't matter much, but perhaps at the final stage, a member of an admission committee may use those Bs to eliminate an otherwise exceptional applicant. I think you're absolutely right that this could be how things play out. (Most of us have heard stories about how impossible it is for members of admissions committees to make decisions at the final stages, because there are so many great applicants. No doubt some members of these committees resort to unreliable measures.) My point, the spirit of which is consistent with yours, is that it's more common that a couple of Bs would eliminate an applicant at an early stage than at a final stage. So, just as a purely practical matter, applicants with weaker grades have a tougher time getting their letters and writing samples to be read in the first place. GRE and GPA allow admission committees to set aside many applications before going to the trouble to read the letters of recommendation and writing samples. I think many departments roughly follow a procedure similar to that of University of Chicago (though University of Chicago has an unusual policy of not wait-listing anyone). Applications must survive "cuts" at each "stage" of the process, and eventually this process produces a pool of applicants that is offered admission. At the first stage in the process, in order to reduce the burden of reviewing applications, many applications are set aside after a quick glance. This quick glance (just because it is quick) is not long enough to read letters of recommendation or samples, but it is long enough to read numbers. And unfortunately, if the effect on the reader is that the application is far too weak to receive serious consideration, the application is set aside. I take this to be exactly what University of Chicago does in its four-stage review process. On its site, the department writes that there is a "first-cut in which the initial applicant pool (of about 250 or so complete dossiers) is narrowed down to about forty or so," followed by "a careful review of the writing samples of the candidates whose dossiers survived the first cut." The department probably doesn't direct its committee to eliminate applicants who scored below X on the GRE or have less than Y grade point average. But it probably does direct its committee to make cuts on the basis of this quick-glance review, which by its nature is a kind of cutting off by the numbers. Some departments don't follow the "stages" approach. Some have one cut followed by a one-stage review of the remaining applications. One person does an initial cut of applications that, on quick glance, look especially weak and not worth further consideration. ("On quick glance," i.e. not long enough to read letters or papers.) The remaining applications are distributed among the members of the admission committee. No fewer than three members of the committee will read each application, and each member assigns each application a numerical score. Very roughly, and only after some adjustments, these scores are averaged. The applicants whose applications received the highest scores then receive offers of admission. All this talk about cut-offs may be disheartening to people with imperfect numbers. But I think it's actually good news for people with less than amazing numbers. Here's why. Once an application has been deemed "good enough" (on account of numbers) for further consideration, the numbers are deemed good enough and therefore less relevant. I think the difference between a 162 and a 169 on the verbal is significant statistically but insignificant in terms of its effect in philosophy admissions. The committee members sort of "move on" to consider the features of the application that require the most scrutiny (and the most of their valuable time), the features that are most revealing of philosophical potential. Those features are the letters of recommendation and the writing sample. Once a committee member goes to the lengths of reading an applicant's writing sample, that member has set aside (perhaps literally) the data from the online application, e.g. the applicant's name, her biographical details, her scores, etc. I think this is bad news for those people who devoted too much time studying the GRE. I worked pretty hard to earn the 169 on the verbal and the 6.0 on the writing. It's just not worth it! My rule on the GRE is this: Get good numbers, but don't go to lengths to get great numbers. If your GRE score starts with a 16 (or 17!), you're fine. A 160/160/5.0 is completely fine and is a reasonable goal for most people. I don't want to overstate this, but I think most philosophers don't give a shit about the difference between 160 and 169 on the GRE. The GPA matters a bit more but not probably a lot more.

Many programs do go through rounds, but many other programs do not. Some programs ask evaluators more or less to rank the applications in their piles. Others ask evaluators to assign a numerical value to an application (like on a scale of 1 to 10, how strong was this application?). In other words, some methods do not involve going through rounds at all. But yeah, some do. And for those that do, perhaps some of those rounds allow people with lower numbers to "pass" to the next round. I guess what I'm saying is that there's no telling how your GPA will affect you. We know that some people with less than awesome GPAs have done well in philosophy admissions. We also know that the people who have done well generally have had amazing grades. Even that doesn't tell us too much, for it happens that people with amazing grades are more likely to have strong applications otherwise. But I take it that your point is simple: For some departments, there's a stage at which your not-amazing grades may not hurt you. I think that's true. As I've commented elsewhere, these are just random sets of philosophers with their own standards of evaluation. Some philosophers care about grades, and some do not. I will say that I find it very hard to believe that numbers play a significant role at any department very late in the process. Here's the simple reason: These people are quite busy and simply don't want to read very many papers. Once they've read a paper and liked it (a lot!), my belief is that most philosophers aren't going to care too much about numbers at that point. Edit. Okay, I gave your comment a closer read. I take it that you're saying that numbers could make a real difference when the time comes to decide between two amazing applicants. I think that's right, but I think it's FAR more common that a philosopher will disregard numbers at this stage and simply make it about the quality of the papers and the letters of recommendation. Philosophers are pretty smart people, and they're likely to realize that GPAs and GREs simply aren't super predictive of success in philosophy. I'm just having an amazingly hard time imagining a brilliant philosopher weighing grades when s/he's just finished reading two writing samples and six letters of recommendation, particularly at the latest stage in the process, when this person is deciding among only a few applicants. If so, then we have cause to be even more cynical about philosophy admissions. Edit 2. One more thing. Usually GPAs and GREs matter far more at the earliest stage, if they matter at all, because they are the easiest way to distinguish among applicants. It stands to reason that these elements of applications are more useful in narrowing the pool. How else would this initial narrowing happen? Certainly not by reading letters and papers! Perhaps by tossing aside applications from people who attended lesser-known schools or didn't major in philosophy.

I can't tell whether you're joking. Do you mean that right after I posted this optimistic note of encouragement, you were rejected by WUSTL?

Just a note to people who applied to WUSTL and have NOT (yet) been rejected: Last year, I noted that a non-rejection from WUSTL could be taken as good news. At the time that I posted about WUSTL, I commented that a friend had not received the rejection. This friend was later admitted to WUSTL, though I can't remember how many days passed between the rejections and this friend's notification of admission. Bottom line: If you applied and have not been rejected, you may end up at WUSTL this fall. Let's hope so!

Congratulations! Quite an accomplishment. Area of interest?

Strange. I tried to upvote this post five times, but the system prevented more than one.

Two quick things in reply: 1. I understand the sentiment of your post to be: writing samples shouldn't be the only basis on which an applicant is evaluated. I wholeheartedly agree. If you meant something more, do say so. 2. To your point about MA programs helping students produce better samples: http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2014/02/phd-admissions-writing-samples-and-ma-programs.html. This highly relevant post discusses the same point. The comments are particularly apt and worth a complete read, in my view. edit for grammar

The question is, why might a professor care almost exclusively about writing sample and overlook grades and GPA? My sense from talking with this professor is that he simply believes that, since quality of writing is the measure of a philosopher, it ought to be the measure of an applicant. Is that simplistic? After all, we nearly always (justifiably? necessarily?) judge a philosopher by the content of her written work (the ideas contained, the quality of the expression). There are many reasons, besides incompetence, that a person may perform poorly in terms of grades and test scores. It seems like a person simply can't "do philosophy" (at least in our context*) unless she can produce quality, written work. That's what it is to "do philosophy" in our context. So why not have the applicant "do philosophy" in the application and evaluate the applicant on how well she can do philosophy? *Of course, there are famous philosophers who have been evaluated on the basis of their oral communication alone.

Tuv0k, I happen not to share your worry about the ethics of having a letter submitted under another person's name, but I respect you for following your intuition. My own view is that the person whose name appears on the letter has endorsed its content. Maybe the moral question is whether the person should endorse the content. Perhaps B has good reason to believe that whatever A says about you is just as reliable as anything B would learn directly. If B is mistaken, that's B's problem, right? Hmm. I do see why someone would hesitate to accept the deal. Is this common practice? Well, maybe not as much in Philosophy. But in the world out there, in the legal world and the business world, it's super common. It's so common that it's now expected. This could change the moral evaluation of your situation involving A and B. If admissions committees understand that this is quite normal practice, they will not be misled by letters, because they will view all letters with this in mind. That's the theory at least. I should say that I know a senior professor in philosophy who has a junior professor write letters on his or her behalf. Now two more points. With regard to your decision not to ask letter-writers to contact the department, that's understandable. You may want to consult your letter-writers, too. Maybe tell them what's happening with your applications. I think the norm varies by department, but some departments really want to do this sort of networking on your behalf. (Edit: After all, your letter-writers have invested a lot in you. They simply want to help, and their spoken word on your behalf may allow the admissions committee to make a better-informed decision. So the motive needn't be shady, even if we decide that, all things considered, the practice is shady.) That may not be relevant to you. Finally, to your question about emailing the committee. In both law and philosophy admissions, applicants often attempt to move themselves from wait-list to admittance. Law applicants are very aggressive about this-- they often send three or four "letters of continuing interest" in the hope of being admitted. Philosophy applicants, true to form, are less assertive. However, it is widely accepted practice to contact the department (perhaps the graduate admissions chair or whomever notified you of the wait-list) to let the relevant people know that you're very glad to be considered, that you're very serious about the program, that there are specific things (naming those things) that draw you to the program, and -- if and only if it's true -- that you would immediately accept an offer of admission. It's normal to feel uncomfortable with this, but it's widely accepted. In every case, no matter your feelings about any of the above, you ought to offer at least a brief reply to a wait-list offer to let the person know that you received the offer and are glad to be considered. That's just a matter of old-fashioned propriety.

Yes. To be very clear, Riverstyx, there's another reason that the department almost certainly didn't mean to imply anything about the content of your letters. I assume that you waived the right to review the content of your letters. For a department to reveal anything about the content of those letters would be a scandal of the highest order, because letter-writers (almost always) submit letters on condition that the person about whom they write will never know the content of the letters.* Under these conditions, departments are not free to give you even a general impression of the quality of the letters they received. For a department to reveal this information would be morally outrageous, not only because it's a violation of trust, but also because it serves to undermine the entire process. What makes an enthusiastic letter so powerful is, in part, the simple fact that the applicant will never see this enthusiasm. Ideally there is no untoward motive on the part of a letter-writer, because the letter-writer means only to address the relevant few on the admissions committee. Would not letters generally be more enthusiastic if the letter-writers believed that those about whom they write will see the content of the letters? When a busy philosopher takes the time to go on and on about the virtues of an applicant, it sends a powerful message -- one that would be diluted were the integrity of the process undermined. *This condition is sometimes waived by the letter-writer herself; if the letter-writer is particularly fond of the applicant, she may even allow the applicant to view the letter before submitting it. This practice is not widely accepted, and it's ethically suspect. But in absolutely no case, when the applicant has waived the right, may anyone at the school reveal the content of the letter to the applicant. Obviously this includes hints and intimations about the content, e.g. "your letters need to be enthusiastic, wink, wink."

I would accept the Duke wait-list as a very promising sign. It's at least cause to be optimistic. The rule on wait-lists is that, as departments get further away from top-five or so, they tend to admit more people. So a #5 department (very roughly here, as a rule) admits fewer people than a #25 department, because the #25 department will lose some people to higher-ranked programs. I think the number goes up slightly as you approach #50/unranked programs. This rule sort of plays out with the MA programs, too. MA programs admit a lot of people. As a matter of fact, MA programs may admit 30+ people with the aim of enrolling just 10 or fewer of them. Again, the reason is that MA programs lost people to PhD programs (and higher-ranked MA programs). If you get on an MA program wait-list, you could be among 30 or so on that list. That's why some MA programs actually tell you your position on the list. E.g. Northern Illinois University used to tell people something to the effect of, "You're so high on the list that we can virtually guarantee that you will be admitted." Duke probably doesn't have to admit too many people, because it's a great program. (I.e. Duke probably doesn't need a long wait-list.) University of Chicago "breaks the rules" by admitting 10 people and wait-listing no one. Typically, as I understand it, University of Chicago enrolls at least six of these people. Duke is ranked very similarly to University of Chicago, so I don't see any reason that Duke would have to admit that many more people than University of Chicago. This is all to say that my educated guess (for what very, very little it's worth) is that Duke wait-lists about five people. I remember that last year that I speculated that people wait-listed have a better than 50 percent chance of being admitted. I can't remember how I came to that conclusion. I see that you applied to a lot of T20 programs. That's good. If I were in your shoes, I would be optimistic right now. I hope things work out for you. Tangentially, I will mention: Sometimes it's appropriate for a letter-writer, if she knows a member of faculty at the department at which you're wait-listed, to reach out to a member of that department. Handle with care. I've seen it done. Sometimes wait-lists aren't ranked, particularly when those lists are short. The letter-writer may be able to communicate tactfully that you are very serious and would accept the offer, if extended. The letter-writer may be able to push things in a helpful direction. This tactic is not (yet) widely accepted practice, but it's being done. Maybe one way to look at it is that it's part of the process. Not sure what people think of this. Seems shady, but I'm not sure that there are relevant differences between this tactic and many others that are widely accepted (and even expected).

I'll be the jerk who quotes your entire post, only to say that I up-voted it not because it's a great post substantively (though it may be), but because it's so long.

The forum this year is at a new high. The dialogue is civil, the topics are carefully selected, the comments are thoughtful. Thanks, everyone, for making that happen. At some point, I'll offer a post about my thoughts as someone who left philosophy for another discipline. It's pretty common to go to law school after failing in some other aspect of life (only some sarcasm intended), so I'll comment on that, too. For now, I better get back to the books. Have a good day!

My guess (and others, please chime in to disagree) is that the person who helped you took a very quick glance at your materials and offered the conclusion without much additional thought. My guess, based on work with department administrators and philosophers, is that the person who helped you does not have much time to give an analysis of your application. To be perfectly honest, I'm shocked that you received such a helpful reply. Typically departments have a strict policy against giving reasons for a failed application. Perhaps a department is willing to overlook the policy when the application is simply incomplete. Your application was incomplete, if I understand you correctly. This, to me, is a no-brainer. Your application was incomplete. The person who helped you is simply highlighting the fact that completeness is the absolute bare minimum even for consideration. Applications that do well are not only complete, but also really, really good. The bad news is that you weren't taken seriously. The good news is that this says nothing of the merits of your application.

The professor to whom I refer above (i.e. the one who places so little emphasis on grades and scores) doesn't think so much about whether a person will do well in PhD admissions. He thinks about whether the person will do well as a philosopher, and he simply thinks the only important indicator is the quality of the writing sample. I think there are professors like this all over the place. This goes to show that there simply aren't exceptionless rules about how philosophers will evaluate applicants at any level, PhD or MA. True, grades matter to most philosophers on admissions committees. That I can accept. No doubt about it, as someone said above, bad grades aren't a good thing for applicants. They're a bad thing. My point is that it's actually quite surprising how possible it is to do well with mediocre grades, thanks to professors like the one I described. EDIT. Just a thought about my post, to which MattDest thoughtfully replied. It's important to understand my point in the context of a reply to the worry that an application might be doomed by grades in the B-range. Now that I think about it, if someone reads my post out of context, that person may think that I mean to underestimate the importance of grades. I think MattDest's crucial point, if I may say so, is that in a world of very competitive PhD admissions, grades can really undermine an applicant. If you're a young undergrad reading this, and you hope to apply one day to PhD programs, know that your grades are extremely important. The survey results from last cycle indicate that successful applicants generally have very high grades. If, however, you are a rising senior or finishing an MA and wondering whether you ought to even bother to submit PhD applications with B-range grades (and I take it that's who we're discussing, based on the original post): I don't think your application is doomed, because in fact, I've worked with a few philosophers who for the most part don't even look at the grades.

Misread the post. Yes, it looks like plenty can be done! Thanks for noting.

Sid Evans's point is absolutely right, that the grades have not likely doomed you(r application). And here's a piece of general advice to everyone: Do realize that there is only so much control we have over our fates, and paradoxically this can be a comfort at a time when many of us wonder what we should have or could have done differently. In the meantime, take comfort knowing that, given the very wide-ranging expectations and priorities of philosophers who will read your applications, there simply are few exceptionless rules about philosophy admissions. I'm telling you this in complete and utter honesty: At the MA program that I attended -- a very strong program! -- several philosophers in the department care little about grades and disregard test scores altogether! One professor, whom I deeply admire, tells me that it's all about the writing sample for him. If you can't produce a great piece of written work for your one application to the program, that's enough for him. On the other hand, if your work demonstrates promising philosophical potential, he's excited to bring you on board. Overduephil, your question inspired me to produce a post on the philosophy admissions blog. I hope you and others will read the post and offer criticism or feedback generally. In my view, there are three things that an applicant can do to minimize the effect of a weak transcript: 1. Know how to tell the story around your transcript weaknesses. 2. Ask your letter-writers to tell this story. 3. If there are salient weaknesses on the transcript, briefly note them in the application.

In my experience, everyone gets generous funding to attend Georgia State. See https://faircloudblog.wordpress.com/funding/. I've been meaning to remind people that the funding survey, if I may say so, is extremely valuable. Please, everyone, use the survey! I'm going to see whether Sid Evans and I can work into the new site (philosophyadmissions.wordpress.com) something similar for this year.