Gnothi_Seauton

On the point about programs not telling waitlisted applicants their spot on the waitlist, it is worth noting that many programs don't keep a ranked waitlist. Most programs look to bring in a fairly diverse class. Some programs, for instance, want their first year classes to consist of equal numbers of men and women, so they would wait to see if a man or a woman declined their offer before deciding which applicant to select from the waitlist. Also, most programs want diversity in the philosophical interests of their incoming classes. So, if someone with interests in metaphysics declines their offer, they might extend an offer to a waitlisted applicant with interests in metaphysics, even if they have a waitlisted applicant with interests in ethics who has a more impressive file in certain respects. Also, regarding Duke, I was admitted last year and visited. There were 8 or 9 of us on the visit and only 1 ended up accepting Duke's offer. It's the kind of program that will often have to dig deep into its waitlist.

I think UVA does spread out its offers over a few days. The first offers generally go to those one or two students who they nominate for a Jefferson Fellowship, which is a competitive university-wide fellowship. They send other offers a couple days later (if I'm remembering correctly from last year).

Just FYI, though I have no knowledge of what the admissions committee is up to, UNC is currently conducting both a junior search and a senior search. We've had candidates coming in for the last 2 weeks or so, and these visits have occupied most of the faculty's time. The final visit is Monday, so I wouldn't be surprised if we sent out offers shortly thereafter. Maybe in the middle of next week (but, again, I know nothing about the inner workings of the admissions committee).

One last piece of advice: When you start getting offers, really start thinking about how far your stipend will get you given living costs, especially if you are used to one type of lifestyle that might not be possible elsewhere. Having to adjust your lifestyle (say, having to live with several roommates in a fairly noisy environment when you are used to living alone in a quiet area) can really impact not only how effectively you study, but your general psychological condition as well (mostly through the stress of the transition). I think this kind of consideration should be a deciding factor between similarly attractive programs and might even be reason to accept a less attractive program's offer if the gap between how you live now and how you'd have to live going forward is wide enough.

I had an early acceptance last year as well. I'm currently attending the program that accepted me early (UNC), and I'm confident that I made the right choice, but I will warn that an early acceptance can create a psychological bias in favor of that program. I immediately started imagining my life in Chapel Hill. I started researching apartments and looked up what there is to do in the area. Once you start imagining your life somewhere, other places start seeming less appealing. It's natural enough. I would just caution others to try not to let this bias get in the way of making the right graduate school decision. "X accepted me earlier than Y" is not a good reason to choose X over Y. Similarly, and more importantly, "X accepted me early and Y only accepted me off the waitlist" is not a good reason to accept X over Y. It's nice to feel wanted, but all first years will be on equal footing once the program begins. Professors are not biased in favor of those admitted immediately vs. those admitted off the waitlist. Good luck to all! I know these next few months will be stressful, but hang in there!

Too bad you didn't apply to UNC. One of last year's graduates wrote her dissertation on epistemic normativity and landed a tt job at the University of Vermont. Still, your file sounds impressive, so I'm sure you'll get into some very good programs. Best of luck!

First, let me say that I'm extremely impressed that you've managed to produce the kind of stats you have given your difficult situation. I'm sorry you've had to go through it, and I applaud you for persevering. I think that if the application has a space to describe financial hardships, you should absolutely describe your hardships. It might grab the attention of someone reading your file or it might not. I don't think anyone would see it as trying to curry favor, as long as you present it basically as you've presented it here: just a description of your situation. Now, I wouldn't try to put it in a statement of purpose, even though that might seem like a place for that kind of info. Focus on your areas of interest there. If you have any letter writers who know about your situation, they might very well put it in a letter, if you allow them to. I don't get the sense that adcomms really spend too much time looking at the actual graduate school application. They focus on the writing sample, letters, statement of purpose, transcript, GRE scores, and any other documents your provide (like a CV). So, some readers might not even notice the bit about your financial hardships, which is why getting a letter writer to mention it might be the best way to get the adcomm's attention. That said, I guess it might be a bit late in the season to have your writers adjust letters. Finally, I hope you've sent at application to UNC. We have a great graduate student environment here and your interests line up well with our faculty.

I fully endorse alethicethic's emendation of my comments about GPA. I should have added that doing well in an MA program is a great way to dispel worries about a low undergrad GPA. We had several applicants last time with low undergrad GPAs who went on to MA programs, did well, and were admitted to several really good doctoral programs. I guess I was thinking of my advice as applying especially to those coming straight from undergrad. I will say that my cohort at UNC has 8 students, 5 of whom came in with a Master's degree of some kind. The three coming straight from undergrad went to very good schools with great reputations in philosophy.

As far as I know, no program *requires* logic as a prerequisite for admission. However, all doctoral programs (that I'm familiar with) have a logic requirement of some kind, which is usually satisfied either by taking a course or passing an exam. The course/exam will cover material standardly learned in a second course in logic, and both will presuppose knowledge of a first course in logic. So, while you're not required to have taken logic before starting, you will need to know at least the material standardly covered in a first course. If you're auditing a year-long course in logic, that should absolutely be sufficient, particularly if you can get one of your letter writers to mention it.

I don't think it matters much either way. The committee can look at an SoP and know pretty much immediately who an applicant could work with. Naming names is valuable only if you've read a fair amount of some faculty member's work and can articulate very clearly why you'd be a good fit with that person. And even then, it's not *that* valuable. I highly doubt any decision has ever turned on whether an applicant names names. I think many decisions turn on fit, but I don't think how effectively a candidate names names is how the adcomm evaluates fit. Though, as the commenters from other disciplines note, the norms vary from discipline to discipline. Maybe it's true that some departments like to see it. But my sense is that in philosophy it's not really required. You might want to do it if it isn't clear from your statement of your interests why you're a good fit, but then again, if that's not clear, you probably shouldn't be applying to that program.

I don't know about how Continental-oriented departments look at the GRE, but I would only point out that your score is identical to someone from last year, MattDest, who was accepted to Arizona, Rice, Syracuse, and a couple others and waitlisted at some really good places as well. I think your scores are quite solid and I wouldn't bother taking the test again.

I can't speak for any programs other than the one I'm in, but UNC actively recruits even numbers of men and women aiming for a 50/50 split in the incoming class. My class has 4 men and 4 women. However, as far as I know, there is no other active affirmative action policy. That said, my class happens to be pretty diverse. I'm the only white American male in my cohort.

I don't know of any terminal MA programs in the US that allow exclusive specialization in political philosophy (or any other area of philosophy, for that matter). Moreover, just about any terminal MA program in the US is going to be a two-year program. That said, if you'd be willing to go through two years with broader coverage in philosophy, I think Georgia State and Tufts are both excellent choices for work in political philosophy (Georgia State, in particular). UW-Milwaukee would also be a solid choice. One good program in the UK, which satisfies all your requirements, is the LSE's Philosophy and Public Policy program. It allows you to focus more or less exclusively on moral and political philosophy, and it only takes one year.

UNC is a really exciting place to do philosophy. There's always a lot going on. The department brings in cool speakers at least once per month. In addition, every October, the department hosts the Chapel Hill Philosophy Colloquium, which is a weekend-long event bringing in about 5 philosophers from around the country to give talks. I don't remember everyone on the list this year, but that info is available online. In addition, Geoff Sayre-McCord and Simon Blackburn run a metaethics workshop each December. Again, I don't remember all the participants this year, but I think Russ Shafer-Landau, Jamie Dreier, and Jonathan Dancy are among them. The environment in the department is quite collegial. The faculty members are always around and happy to chat with grad students. The courses themselves are, so far anyway, quite good. One really cool feature is that each Fall, the department runs what's called a "Summa Seminar," which is a class on some topic of contemporary interest. It brings in speakers to talk about their latest work on the issues raised in class. Geoff and Simon are currently running one of these things and three people (one each from Pitt, Princeton, and NYU) are coming in to talk about their work in metaethics. Alan Nelson ran one on Kant and Locke last year. It's a cool opportunity to meet people in other departments. There are several reading groups at any one point. I think Alan Nelson is currently running one on Hume's Treatise. Tom Hill is going to start one soon on the topic of his APA Presidential Address. That should be fun. I think Marc Lange ran one over the summer. The grad students are very friendly. My cohort is already pretty close, which is really nice. I don't get the sense that the environment is competitive. As far a "niches," I would say anyone interested in moral philosophy, metaphysics, early modern, and general philosophy of science would do especially well coming here, but Chapel Hill's placement has been pretty strong across most major areas. I would not apply here or attend if you have serious research interests in Continental. No one in the department really does Continental and topics in Continental are taught very infrequently. I think there was a Hegel seminar a year or two ago, but I don't know of another example of a vaguely Continental topic being taught.

Just wanted to register my agreement with Philhopeful's comments about originality in writing samples. There are a bunch of ways to be original. The key is to make sure that, whatever you write about, it's your own argument. Don't just present and agree with someone else's argument. And fit is also super important (another good thing to bring up, Philhopeful). I think it goes hand-in-hand with what I said about naming names in your statement of purpose. If you find yourself struggling to make your interests fit, it's probably not the school for you.

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 agree with what you said, but I think your reading only captures part of my point (my fault for not being clearer): If you are on a department's short list (maybe one of their top 20 candidates or so), then your GRE scores become almost meaningless. Any distinctions made between candidates at this point will come down to letters and writing sample. However (and this is your reading of my point), I do think it's the case that having solid GRE scores is important (though perhaps not necessary, as the example of the guy from NYU shows) for making it to that short list. My point for Infinite Zest's case is that 165V/160Q is more than sufficient to make it on the short list at top places, as long as everything else in the file is really good.

In this past season, one guy got into Texas (PGR rank 20) and Wisconsin (PGR rank 22) with a GRE quant score of 145 (Verbal score of 161). Granted, his undergrad was from NYU, but you should have similar caliber letters. I really don't think any decision would come down to your GRE scores, particularly when your scores are solid.

I wouldn't bother with taking it again. My GRE quant score was only 1 point higher than yours, and 1 point isn't meaningful. And 165 verbal is perfectly respectable. For an applicant with your background, the names on your letters (as long as the letters are enthusiastic) and your writing sample will be what really catches the attention of the admissions committees.

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.

If your writing sample is really stellar and your LORs suggest that your GPA is not indicative of your potential, then you might be in with a shot. But one important thing worth noting is that graduate schools (not specific programs, but the graduate schools themselves) often set minimum GPAs for admission, and that minimum is generally 3.0 or so. You should figure out the requirements of the graduate school before applying, and if your GPA falls below the minimum, you should figure out if they are at all flexible.

I think a paper devoted primarily to textual analysis is fine as long as you are working squarely within the history of philosophy or, possibly, continental philosophy (I don't know enough about continental to know whether such a paper would be appropriate as a writing sample). That said, I think it is important to get into the philosophy a bit. Once you've analyzed the text (and I agree here with dgswaim that any interpretation you endorse should at least make note of any competing interpretations in the literature), you should try to take a stand on whether the author's view is any good. So, suppose you're analyzing something in Descartes. The paper might begin, "There's this puzzling passage in Descartes in which he discusses such and such. However, the passage admits of two different interpretations..." And then you'd go on to analyze the text and argue for one of the two interpretations. But to that point, you haven't really gotten into the philosophy yet. Once you get clear on what the author is saying, you should engage with the arguments a bit. And that usually involves delving into the secondary literature, unless you are dealing with a passage that has had very little written about it.

For what it's worth, I did a one-year master's program in the UK and loved it. I think the answer to your question depends at least partially on the reason the UK program attracts you. If you are only looking at the program as a bridge to a Ph.D program, it might make more sense to wait around until the next application season and apply to some Ph.D programs and some funded US terminal MA programs (depending on which UK school you are talking about; Cambridge and maybe a couple others would be a different story). If you really want to experience the UK, live abroad for a while, and maybe travel a bit, then it might be worth going into a little debt to have that experience. I don't think we have enough information to know whether you would be competitive for Ph.D programs. It depends on which Ph.D programs you are interested in, which "big state school" you attended, who is writing your letters, and how good your writing sample will be.

I read your question as inquiring not only about relevant readings in your area of interest (which are, of course, important) but also readings that one has done "by the end of your undergraduate major in philosophy." Most undergraduate philosophy majors have certain distribution requirements, which would normally mean two courses in history (one in Ancient/Medieval, one in Modern), a course in ethics, a course in logic, and a course in M&E. After that, you'd have electives. Some more rigorous undergraduate programs (particularly those in analytic departments) might require upper-level courses in some of the "core" areas. But if we take the basic case, I would say that if you want to read the equivalent of an undergraduate major, focus on normal reading lists from the five courses I mentioned and then turn to your areas of interest. In Ancient/Medieval, the primary figures are probably Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, and Aquinas. There are lots of works that could count as "core" works for each of these authors, so I would pick selections from each on different topics. For Modern, I think it is important to know a bit about Descartes, Hobbes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, and Kant. For ethics, I would say Plato's Republic, Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, Kant's Groundwork, Mill's Utilitarianism, and, for a skeptical perspective, Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil. For logic, you should at least know basic logic, and ideally you'd have some understanding of some of the metalogical results like completeness. M&E is a pretty broad area. I don't know if there's a short "core" reading list. Perhaps others could chime in and list what they take to be "core." I would know something about Plato and Aristotle's different metaphysical views. I'd understand the distinction between rationalism and empiricism and then look at Kant's system. There is also, of course, the huge amount of important (and now classic) contemporary stuff in each of these areas. For instance, most ethics students have read Peter Singer's "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" and also have some idea of what Rawls was up to. Most epistemology students have read Gettier's famous paper. Most metaphysics students have read stuff by Kripke and Lewis. I obviously can't give a complete list of all of the important works. Others should chime in and say what they take to be the core works in each main area, but this is a first stab at it.

It should be noted that Leiter's blurb about MA programs in philosophy was written quite a while ago. At least as long as I've known about the PGR, which would be since probably 2008 or so. It would be unsurprising to learn that the "top 7" no longer corresponds perfectly with the top 7 placement records among terminal MA programs. That said, I would imagine that the fact that Leiter mentions them as the best choices has contributed to their continued success.