Glasperlenspieler

Since it seems part of your desire to transfer stems from concerns about the job market, it probably worth noting that the job market for medievalists is probably worse than for philosophy generally. And since, you make it sound like you'd like an R1 position, it's probably also worth mentioning (beyond the fact that it's extremely hard for anyone to get an R1 position) that the one place where medievalists actually get hired (semi-)regularly is at Catholic colleges and universities (which, with a few notable exceptions, means smaller teaching colleges). None of this is to deter you. It may still make sense to transfer, but these are good things to think about going in. It would also probably behoove you for the job market to demonstrate a competency in related field (if you work on medieval metaphysics, make sure you can teach a class on contemporary metaphysics, or gain the skills to teach an into ancient or early modern class). That means picking  a programs that can facilitate your development in the related field as well as medieval philosophy. 
Probably not worth your time
Not quite sure what you mean by two letter from one prof. I think it's fine to have one letter from undergrad, the other two should probably come from your current program.
Double check the retirement status of the medievalists at this program. Eleonore Stump, for example, could plausibly retire at any time.
Don't alienate professors or other grad students at you current program. It's always possible that your transfer attempt fails, which means you will need to be working with these people for another 4+ years.

Of the programs you listed, Northwestern and (I think) Indiana regularly admit people straight from undergrad. I just graduated from Northwestern's program, and there were two people in my cohort who came in straight from undergrad. I've known plenty of others as well.
That said, if you're really serious about American Religions, I would absolutely consider taking an MA first at FSU or Miami (OH) or another program with an extremely strong track record in that subfield. You'll have a much, much better shot at top AmRel Ph.D. programs with an MA. And, to clarify xypathos' point about being put in an MA program--not a lot of elite Ph.D. programs have a terminal MA to put you in. Northwestern definitely doesn't. Neither do the Ivies you listed. And schools that do, like Columbia or UChicago, will make you pay a ton of money for theirs with no promise of Ph.D. admission when you're done. I would highly recommend seeking out funded MA programs like FSU and Miami where you'll get some teaching experience and you'll work with really well-respected scholars in the field.

First of all, I wasn't really surprised by anything in this article. If this comes as a shock, then you probably aren't paying enough attention.
 
If by 'commendable' you mean 'deserving praise' then I don't think that a graduate program doing a minimal amount of work to support their graduate students should count as commendable so much as the bare minimum for qualifying as a ethically responsible program (which is not to deny that many programs fail to meet this bar).
I'm not as familiar with Kramnick and Cassuto as @wordstew is, but this point by Cassuto strikes me as a bullshit excuse for not doing anything:
"But limiting enrollment can present its own problems, said Leonard Cassuto, a professor of English at Fordham University who writes about graduate education for The Chronicle’s Advice section. If colleges trained only enough graduate students to replace retiring faculty members, you’d lose out on all kinds of racial, socioeconomic, and intellectual diversity, he said, and “I don’t think anybody wants that.” "
First, he seems to assume that minorities and individuals from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are weaker applicants, who would not be accepted were programs to accept fewer students. Furthermore, it suggests that even if that were the case, departments wouldn't or couldn't do anything to correct for these concerns. I'm not really sure why we should accept either of these concerns. (This isn't to deny that discrimination occurs in the admissions process. I just doubt that reducing the number of admitted students would necessarily make that situation any worse). I think the refusal to take seriously the idea that cohort sizes need to be reduced in the humanities is either naivete or willful blindness and both are irresponsible. Likewise, the failure of programs to provide complete placement information on their websites is dishonest, deceptive, and unacceptable (but also very common). Any program that doesn't (minimally) address these two issues is responsible to perpetuating this system.

First of all, I wasn't really surprised by anything in this article. If this comes as a shock, then you probably aren't paying enough attention.
 
If by 'commendable' you mean 'deserving praise' then I don't think that a graduate program doing a minimal amount of work to support their graduate students should count as commendable so much as the bare minimum for qualifying as a ethically responsible program (which is not to deny that many programs fail to meet this bar).
I'm not as familiar with Kramnick and Cassuto as @wordstew is, but this point by Cassuto strikes me as a bullshit excuse for not doing anything:
"But limiting enrollment can present its own problems, said Leonard Cassuto, a professor of English at Fordham University who writes about graduate education for The Chronicle’s Advice section. If colleges trained only enough graduate students to replace retiring faculty members, you’d lose out on all kinds of racial, socioeconomic, and intellectual diversity, he said, and “I don’t think anybody wants that.” "
First, he seems to assume that minorities and individuals from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are weaker applicants, who would not be accepted were programs to accept fewer students. Furthermore, it suggests that even if that were the case, departments wouldn't or couldn't do anything to correct for these concerns. I'm not really sure why we should accept either of these concerns. (This isn't to deny that discrimination occurs in the admissions process. I just doubt that reducing the number of admitted students would necessarily make that situation any worse). I think the refusal to take seriously the idea that cohort sizes need to be reduced in the humanities is either naivete or willful blindness and both are irresponsible. Likewise, the failure of programs to provide complete placement information on their websites is dishonest, deceptive, and unacceptable (but also very common). Any program that doesn't (minimally) address these two issues is responsible to perpetuating this system.

Just so you know, there are no jobs at all. Nobody wants you: research schools think aesthetics is a joke (they shouldn't), and teaching schools think it's a luxury subfield (they shouldn't). That's changing, but very slowly. That's the bad news.

The good news is that the ASA and BSA are great organizations, and very proactive in securing opportunities for their members. Currently, for example, both associations are sponsoring postdoctoral fellowships, as well as graduate studentships. There are so many conferences every year that it's easy to build that part of your CV, and the community is great and very supportive. I doubt you could cultivate such strong research connections so easily in any other subfield.
As for where to attend: with a particular focus on film, CUNY is the obvious choice because of Carroll, but you'll want to have a chat or two with students there about the funding situation, supervision, etc. For aesthetics training in particular, I think that CUNY, McGill, UBC, NYU, and Maryland College-Park are the strongest options in North America (though Santa Cruz will be pretty fearsome once their new hires are tenured). For Maryland, you'll want to ask around about Levinson's availability. But of those, I really think CUNY is far and away the best place for film-related stuff. Weirdly, I think that UBC might be my next choice for film-y things, just on the strength of film-y things usually being more about aesthetics proper than ontology or philosophy of art in particular, and their strengths in epistemology, mind, and philosophy of science seem nicely complementary.

Aesthetics is thriving in UK departments, but getting hired in the UK is horribly difficult (it's horribly difficult everywhere, but the UK has some additional barriers for non-nationals). From memory (I don't have the time/internet access to check more thoroughly at the moment), Kent would be my obvious choice for film stuff, because Murray Smith is there. As far as aesthetics in the UK goes more generally, however, Manchester, Nottingham, York, Birkbeck, and Durham stand out to me as the strongest programs, depending on your particular interests.

My advice to you is that if you go into aesthetics, cultivate a second, highly respectable, high-prestige area of specialization, preferably in a subfield with half-decent job prospects. 

Depends on the university. Some universities only allow you to apply to one program per year (this is the case for Stanford and Princeton, I believe). Other universities have no restrictions.
It sort of depends on how much overlap there is between the two departments. It's quite possible (or even likely) that the admissions committees of the two programs consist of entirely different individuals. In this case, submitting the same writing sample (assuming it's applicable to both) wouldn't seem to pose any issue, and it's not clear to me that it would be an issue even if there was some overlap. While I don't generally think emailing professors is particularly important in the admissions process, I do think this is a situation where it makes sense. You could email the professors you are interested in working with and ask them if they think applying to both programs would make sense and, if not, which program would be more applicable to your research. I did this for one university when I was applying and got a very nice email back. Of course, I didn't end up getting accepted there, so ymmv. Generally though, if there's no restriction on doing so, I don't think it hurts to apply to multiple departments as long as they are both relevant to you.

Depends on the university. Some universities only allow you to apply to one program per year (this is the case for Stanford and Princeton, I believe). Other universities have no restrictions.
It sort of depends on how much overlap there is between the two departments. It's quite possible (or even likely) that the admissions committees of the two programs consist of entirely different individuals. In this case, submitting the same writing sample (assuming it's applicable to both) wouldn't seem to pose any issue, and it's not clear to me that it would be an issue even if there was some overlap. While I don't generally think emailing professors is particularly important in the admissions process, I do think this is a situation where it makes sense. You could email the professors you are interested in working with and ask them if they think applying to both programs would make sense and, if not, which program would be more applicable to your research. I did this for one university when I was applying and got a very nice email back. Of course, I didn't end up getting accepted there, so ymmv. Generally though, if there's no restriction on doing so, I don't think it hurts to apply to multiple departments as long as they are both relevant to you.

I can't speak for every program, but in the programs I'm familiar with (all in the humanities), the admissions committee typically doesn't even read application materials until after the submission deadline. The sciences might be a different story, but for English programs it shouldn't make any difference whatsoever whether you hit submit the day things are due or a month beforehand.

Agreeing with Hector here.
I can see wanting to take electives at an online program, but why would you take your major --especially in the Humanities-- at an online program?

Speaking in terms of institutional and program reputation, ASU would be the best. How well that would translate in terms of an online degree program, I'm unsure. However, ASU has some name-recognition in academic philosophy because it has a graduate program in philosophy with some areas of particular strength (though unranked), and more generally is a decent, reasonably well-known large public university. The other schools will not have any such name-recognition.
I can't speak to the online aspects of any of these programs, but I would ask you this--why do you want to pursue an online program? You'd be better served by completing your degree in-person rather than online if at all possible. A big part of a good philosophical education is talking to your classmates and interacting with faculty, and it's hard to replicate that adequately in an online space.

You can publish in a graduate or undergraduate journal if you like, but I don't think it counts for anything in the admissions process. Publications in peer-reviewed, scholarly journals -- that's impressive. Undergraduate journals, not so much. Additionally, you may be giving away scholarship that you could develop into an article for a major academic journal later while in graduate school (undergraduates also, on very rare occasions, publish important articles in "real" journals). I would concentrate on improving the writing sample.

If you look at the CVs of professors who got their PhDs 15-25 years ago, you'll see that at one time it was not at all uncommon to spend 8-10 years in a PhD program. To a large degree that's changed. Programs often emphasize a lot time-to-degree and universities are increasingly putting hard limits on how long a PhD student can stay matriculated. There are however some programs that are more "old school" in this respect. Generally, I'd say that's a bad thing. 5 years is probably a little optimistic in many cases but I'd say a program that can't get most students through in 6-6.5 years is probably doing something wrong (I'm talking literature here. History is often going to be longer and I think rhet/comp is often shorter but that's not really my field).
Things you should look at:
1. Coursework requirements: How many courses do you take and when. I visited on program where students reported struggling to complete coursework in 3 years. If course work and exams aren't done til year four and then you have to write a dissertation, well you can do the math... I ended up picking a program where coursework was done in 2 years.
2. Teaching requirements: Same program as above had students teaching 2 courses in the fall and 1 in spring. Granted it was two sections of the same course, but still that's time away from coursework, exam prep, dissertation etc. 
3. Funding: You want good funding, but to a certain degree, I'd almost prefer a program that has 5 or 6 years of guaranteed funding and then avenues to secure funding after that if you need it rather than a program that guarantees 7 years (this is again coming from an anecdote). The former suggests to me a desire to get students to complete in time even if you'll support those who don't while the latter communicates an expectation that it will likely take that long. (This is probably my most contentious point and to be taken with a grain of salt, but I still think there's something to it).
NB: If those are university statistics, they will likely include AWOL students that are technically still enrolled (though some programs don't allow that) and students have a lecturer position somewhere else without having finished their dissertation, and maybe even students who took a leave of absence (though I would hope not). Of course, a few of those won't affect a median too much...
Final thought: With the job market being what it is, I think it's increasingly common for people to spend an extra year polishing their dissertations in order to get an extra year on the job market. This will obviously drive up median time-to-degree as well. Also, I've noticed people in my field who took a long time to get their PhD who nonetheless graduated and got an R1 TT position. So it's not necessarily a bad thing but it's also something I knew I didn't want when I was looking at programs and I made decisions accordingly.

A lot of this is going to depend on what you mean by "analytic" but I would say that the majority of PhD granting programs are analytic in some sense or another. There's a world of difference between David Lewis style metaphysics, naturalistic approaches to philosophy of mind, or Rawlsian political philosophy even though those could all be understood as "analytic." A lot of people will claim that the Philosophical Gourmet Report (here) is representative of analytic philosophy. I'm not sure that's quite right, but it's at least  a good starting place, especially if you take a look at the specialty rankings. (A lot of people will complain about the PGR on here and there are certainly some legitimate concerns which you can easily find by looking around these boards, but I don't think they entirely negate it's value.)

Eh... This is obviously hard to say for sure and will vary a lot from program to program (and advisor to advisor), but I suspect that especially top tier programs (even if they pay lip service to alt-ac careers) look down upon people seeking careers outside of academia. That's not to say you won't find resources to pursue those careers at those universities, but I might be slightly hesitant about expressing though wishes too loudly too early in your program. Despite all the talk about the life of the mind and what not, PhD programs in the humanities should still largely be understood as a very peculiar form of vocational training.
To the OP: I applied to PhD programs with the intent of eventually becoming a professor and by and large maintain that goal (despite some doubts and a desire to keep my eyes open for alternatives). But I don't think I mentioned that desire once in my SOP and I don't think there's really a need to. Instead, I wrote about my research goals and interests, why I thought they were worth pursuing, what skills I had to do that research, and why I thought that particular program made sense for pursuing that research. People reading your SOP will likely assume you want to pursue an academic career (mostly because they are so thoroughly ingrained in academia that alternatives won't occur to them) but so what. You're not deceiving them, they're just reading into it what they want to. For the sake of PhD applications, I think there's at least some risk of expressing a desire for alt-ac careers, and since there's no real reason to talk about your career goals in an SOP,  don't do it. If and when you get accepted, you should certainly go through graduate school with an eye towards generating the best chances of getting a job outside of academia and take advantage of all the resources the university has to support that. At some point, you will need to have a conversation with your advisor about career plans, but that's not going to happen until at least a couple years into the program. 
All that being said, you should take very seriously @EM51413's last point. I think a PhD can certainly be a valuable fulfilling experience even if you don't want to be in academia, but it's also a lot of work, stress, academic politics, and time spent when you could be jumpstarting an non-academic career. And if it's not going to be directly career-relevant to you, don't take that decision lightly. 

Eh... This is obviously hard to say for sure and will vary a lot from program to program (and advisor to advisor), but I suspect that especially top tier programs (even if they pay lip service to alt-ac careers) look down upon people seeking careers outside of academia. That's not to say you won't find resources to pursue those careers at those universities, but I might be slightly hesitant about expressing though wishes too loudly too early in your program. Despite all the talk about the life of the mind and what not, PhD programs in the humanities should still largely be understood as a very peculiar form of vocational training.
To the OP: I applied to PhD programs with the intent of eventually becoming a professor and by and large maintain that goal (despite some doubts and a desire to keep my eyes open for alternatives). But I don't think I mentioned that desire once in my SOP and I don't think there's really a need to. Instead, I wrote about my research goals and interests, why I thought they were worth pursuing, what skills I had to do that research, and why I thought that particular program made sense for pursuing that research. People reading your SOP will likely assume you want to pursue an academic career (mostly because they are so thoroughly ingrained in academia that alternatives won't occur to them) but so what. You're not deceiving them, they're just reading into it what they want to. For the sake of PhD applications, I think there's at least some risk of expressing a desire for alt-ac careers, and since there's no real reason to talk about your career goals in an SOP,  don't do it. If and when you get accepted, you should certainly go through graduate school with an eye towards generating the best chances of getting a job outside of academia and take advantage of all the resources the university has to support that. At some point, you will need to have a conversation with your advisor about career plans, but that's not going to happen until at least a couple years into the program. 
All that being said, you should take very seriously @EM51413's last point. I think a PhD can certainly be a valuable fulfilling experience even if you don't want to be in academia, but it's also a lot of work, stress, academic politics, and time spent when you could be jumpstarting an non-academic career. And if it's not going to be directly career-relevant to you, don't take that decision lightly. 

Eh... This is obviously hard to say for sure and will vary a lot from program to program (and advisor to advisor), but I suspect that especially top tier programs (even if they pay lip service to alt-ac careers) look down upon people seeking careers outside of academia. That's not to say you won't find resources to pursue those careers at those universities, but I might be slightly hesitant about expressing though wishes too loudly too early in your program. Despite all the talk about the life of the mind and what not, PhD programs in the humanities should still largely be understood as a very peculiar form of vocational training.
To the OP: I applied to PhD programs with the intent of eventually becoming a professor and by and large maintain that goal (despite some doubts and a desire to keep my eyes open for alternatives). But I don't think I mentioned that desire once in my SOP and I don't think there's really a need to. Instead, I wrote about my research goals and interests, why I thought they were worth pursuing, what skills I had to do that research, and why I thought that particular program made sense for pursuing that research. People reading your SOP will likely assume you want to pursue an academic career (mostly because they are so thoroughly ingrained in academia that alternatives won't occur to them) but so what. You're not deceiving them, they're just reading into it what they want to. For the sake of PhD applications, I think there's at least some risk of expressing a desire for alt-ac careers, and since there's no real reason to talk about your career goals in an SOP,  don't do it. If and when you get accepted, you should certainly go through graduate school with an eye towards generating the best chances of getting a job outside of academia and take advantage of all the resources the university has to support that. At some point, you will need to have a conversation with your advisor about career plans, but that's not going to happen until at least a couple years into the program. 
All that being said, you should take very seriously @EM51413's last point. I think a PhD can certainly be a valuable fulfilling experience even if you don't want to be in academia, but it's also a lot of work, stress, academic politics, and time spent when you could be jumpstarting an non-academic career. And if it's not going to be directly career-relevant to you, don't take that decision lightly. 

I'm pretty sympathetic to @WildeThing's account here. I guess my question is what's the goal in getting a PhD here? If the goal is to eventually obtain a TT position at 4-year college and university, then I don't think a low-res program is going to do you much good. The job marked it notoriously difficult and with literally hundreds of applications for a position, they're looking for reasons not to hire you. In that sort of a situation, a distance PhD is apt to be immediately disqualifying. If you like your current position and hope to stay there, then I guess my question is why do you need a PhD? If you just want the letters next to your name, then sure, a low-res program might be a reasonable option (though I think you risk burnout working full time AND doing a PhD program, if you're going to take it seriously). If there's an associated pay raise at your current position with a higher degree of education, then I guess I'm more sympathetic to this approach, just make sure you don't go into debt for it and the quality of life exchanges really make sense for you.
(To piggy back on one suggestion though, a European PhD might be something to think about. European PhD's typically assume you already have a masters, last only 3 years, and essentially consist only of writing a dissertation, so most of that could be done remotely). 

In general, I agree with the other posters' trepidations about low-res programs and questions about prestige. But as a RhetComp Assistant Professor who dabbles in tech comm, I'll also say that I know multiple graduates of Texas Tech's low-res PhD who are active and serious scholars in the field. Those people have stayed in positions that they had prior to doing the PhD (one in information science, another at a CC). But Texas Tech has a lot of big name faculty and a competitive reputation in the field, so the program offers good opportunities for networking and I also think the potential for mobility into other positions. 

I'm also not convinced that any of these examples make a lick of difference for PhD admissions. It seems like the main goal of an SOP is to demonstrate that you have clearly defined, interesting research foci that are informed by recent scholarship and that the department can support. Beyond that it's probably good to show to some extent in your application that you have the personal qualities that will allow you to complete and PhD program and succeed in it (motivation, determination, integrity, commitment, etc.) and perhaps also that your research interests are stable enough that they're not likely to change completely every week. 
I'm highly skeptical, however, that you need some grand narrative explaining how you came to be interested in your subfield and why it's important to you. I doubt this will hurt you too much (unless it takes away from the above), but I don't seeing it doing much to benefit your application either. Stick to the philosophy and try to be as clear and compelling as possible.

I'm also not convinced that any of these examples make a lick of difference for PhD admissions. It seems like the main goal of an SOP is to demonstrate that you have clearly defined, interesting research foci that are informed by recent scholarship and that the department can support. Beyond that it's probably good to show to some extent in your application that you have the personal qualities that will allow you to complete and PhD program and succeed in it (motivation, determination, integrity, commitment, etc.) and perhaps also that your research interests are stable enough that they're not likely to change completely every week. 
I'm highly skeptical, however, that you need some grand narrative explaining how you came to be interested in your subfield and why it's important to you. I doubt this will hurt you too much (unless it takes away from the above), but I don't seeing it doing much to benefit your application either. Stick to the philosophy and try to be as clear and compelling as possible.

I agree with @Glasperlenspieler in that I think that there is limited utility in talking about non-philosophical particulars. That being said, I think that one can talk about non-philosophical stuff as long as it's brief and relevant. For example, your studies in mathematics or the sciences may have led you to philosophy, or you may have overcome major challenges in getting your degree, etc. Keep in mind, though, as Geoff Pynn from NIU says in this useful essay (I recommend you check it out, @UndergradDad), you should aim to do no harm with the SOP. As Pynn also mentions, doing this requires framing things carefully and concisely and not including too much information of a personal nature. If in doubt, it's probably better to leave non-philosophical stuff out, since doing so isn't ever going to hurt you.

Sure.
By sense of cohesion, I mean something like this: Does your AOI relate to courses you took in undergrad or an MA program? Can you give examples of this area consistently across two programs, or even from several years within undergrad? @Glasperlenspieler definitely put it in the right tone: show that your interests are stable, but without being too hyper-specific. (A balance you won’t strike on your first draft, it requires getting someone else to review your draft to tell you where you are in that balance.)
You are not building a grand narrative that connects everything together, just a sense of definition or cohesion. Thing of it more like smoothing our rough edges than giving fine details. For example, if you have an MA is psychology, but are now trying to do a PhD in philosophy, you need to be able to explain why this MA would be an asset and you understand how they relate, and not that you are just jumping from one field to another. An area of interest at the intersection of the two fields would help immensely in a case like that.
Mentioning specific courses you took that give a sense that you are prepared for your areas of interest is a great tactic. If you wrote papers on that topic specifically, great, mention it once or twice. Interested in Nietzsche and Kierkegaard? It would be good for them to know: you took a course on Nietzsche, and a course on German Idealism, you wrote a phil. of religion paper on Kierkegaard, and that you’ve taken German for two years (or whatever! Fill in your background). Don’t tell them that you started reading Nietzsche when you were 16. Don’t give reasons why one class led you to the next, the listing of them will suffice. This isn’t about how you ‘think deep’ or some story about how nietzsche moved you, its about making clear that you have real, material proof that you have done work that would prepare you for the next degree.
 
 
 

I'm also not convinced that any of these examples make a lick of difference for PhD admissions. It seems like the main goal of an SOP is to demonstrate that you have clearly defined, interesting research foci that are informed by recent scholarship and that the department can support. Beyond that it's probably good to show to some extent in your application that you have the personal qualities that will allow you to complete and PhD program and succeed in it (motivation, determination, integrity, commitment, etc.) and perhaps also that your research interests are stable enough that they're not likely to change completely every week. 
I'm highly skeptical, however, that you need some grand narrative explaining how you came to be interested in your subfield and why it's important to you. I doubt this will hurt you too much (unless it takes away from the above), but I don't seeing it doing much to benefit your application either. Stick to the philosophy and try to be as clear and compelling as possible.

I can't really speak to the differences in applications, but there are two very important factors to consider about UK Programs.
1) Funding - As far as I know, UK programs generally are not funded. Meaning, you are paying for school on top of rent, supplies, food, etc. The U.S. has many funded MA Literature programs which not only make it so that you don't pay to go to school, but also get paid to teach/T.A. I am attending one of these programs in the fall, so if you have more questions about funded MA programs, let me know.
2) Program Length - Generally, MA programs in the U.K. are one year. This may seem appealing because it shortens the time you are in school, but if you want to continue on to a PhD. it can make things much more difficult. Letters of Recommendation are a HUGE part of the application process. If you go to a 1 year program, that starts in September, it basically means that you only have 1-3 months to forge meaningful relationships with your letter writers vs. 1 year+ in 2 year programs. Also, UK letters generally are a little less personal and enthusiastic than US letters. 
 
My advice is that you apply to a mix of PhD. and U.S. MA programs. You may wish to apply to some UK programs too, but know the cons of doing so.
 
Just my opinions of course. Let me know if you want any follow-up!

You're probably going to have to be more specific about your research interests in order to get relevant recommendations. Continental political philosophy and critical theory are BIG fields.