Neither Here Nor There

I second this as I also was a Canadian applicant this year. (1) As per above, Canadian phds do not get much teaching experience. Where I did my MA , most of the PhDs students were receiving no teaching courses. (Not sure if they will end up getting one before graduation or not - surely they will). At one of my PhD offers, my funding package said that I would have one course. (2) You pay tuition all the way through your MA and PhD programs. After the funding runs out, for both MAs and PhDs, you are still incurring tuition fees. I had one fairly substantial funding package this year, but even then, it could not compete with a 6 year funding package in the States for $25,000 a year. (3) If you get SSHRC, many of the programs won't guarantee TAships. Upfront, they may say you will get them, but then they might not prioritize you getting them along the way. And if you are wanting to save money for year 5 and 6, that will suck. (4) Sadly, most new hires in Canada did their PhDs outside Canada. It's a hard choice: the programs in the States leave you with more than some can handle in teaching and researching, but it can pay off in terms of a CV. That said, do whatever you need to do for the love of philosophy. If you aren't trying to land a university teaching job, Canada may be for you. Also, you can still do a MA Canada, and you may need to if landing a 15 program is your goal. Other side things, which the post above also hinted at: Canadian phds do have a lighter load overall, for example, significantly less coursework and a much lighter TA or teaching load (6-10 hours a week of TAing verses teach 2 courses a semester or working 15-20 hours a week as a TA is a pretty big differences). That made me take the offers in Canada very very seriously. Honestly, even with the terrible job market in Canada, I would have accepted the offer on these grounds alone, if it wasn't for the incurring tuition fees the 5-6 years. I don't need the pressure to have to finish in 4 years, if that is even possible.

Yes, continental philosophy, as in the study of European philosophy that is not Anglo-analytic, can be done in any program, and continental "modes," if by that you mean style, is certainly widespread, not necessarily that the majority use it but that its not uncommon and is found all around. However, I think it is fairly clear that a "continental school" is a program/school/department dedicated to studying continental philosophy and the history of philosophy. But does faculty recognition correspond with a certain way of doing philosophy? I will place aside your good rebuttal that it may not, since the so-called analytic style can be adopted by continentalists aside. To add another point, it seems to me that there are a number of very famous faculty in continental departments who have highly original thought. William Desmond at Villanova and Richard Kearney at Boston College come to mind, and then of course, there is Marion at Chicago, who may be best philosopher alive right now, although he is not in the philosophy department.

What I did was say that I was interested in how the areas overlap and had a writing sample that demostrated that I did them all. I also have a publication in a different but still related area. You can tie everything together, I'm sure. I don't know if its necessary to do that, though, and I did apply to continental programs. If you want specifics (that is, if you are continental), PM me.

Most people I know did year 2. I did year 3. That made a big difference to my application too, since it gave me time to do a good writing sample. But if one has a good writing sample, and there are not other reasons said person wants to have a gap year, by all means apply in year 2.

Sure, a phil theology at oxford vs. a MA in philosophy is one reason to turn down a funded program. But for most people, headed into an academic field that may require living on $25,000 a year post-graduation until the unlikely academic job comes up, major debt would be a disaster. Small debt maybe one could wave. But certainly, it depends on a lot of factors. Not disagreeing with your post.

I think there isn't' a "one size fits all" as far as what you need to do to improve your placements the next year. It would depend on too much, whether you are trying for a top 20 school, etc. But I had terrible GREs and got 5 offers. Terrible as in I almost could have guessed every problem on the math section and had a higher score. My verbal was in the 150s. My AW was the only one good (5.5). I applied to continental programs and my GRE made no difference whatsoever. I got into 50% that I had applied. The letter writers are hard to say. If you are still in graduate school, and you had new and better work for which they could comment (for example a master's thesis), by all means use new letter writers or ask them to update. The writing sample is of course most important. I did a writing sample that drew from all my areas of interest; it was very hard to pull off, but it worked well for me. To me, my application was proof that at least in continental philosophy, it all comes down to letters and writing sample. My degrees were from no-name schools, so it wasn't my degrees that carried me. EDIT: and yea, I think sometimes super good writing samples are overlooked because an idea is unpopular. That is unfortunate. On the other hand, maybe one should not apply to schools that don't have faculty really doing their kind of thing.

and why is it that continental programs aren't ranked? it's bullshit. But I guess it is somewhat of a blessing if programs arent' caught in the ranking crap. And yea, Fordham is a great placement.

I had an A- in my AOI and got into 5 phd programs, a couple pretty top tier (I am continental philosophy, though). I had a thesis (talked about in my letters of recommendation) and writing sample that showed my abilities much more than coursework. I think grades matter, but I dont' think they are picking apart transcripts that closely. If GPA and GRE makes the cut, it all comes down to the letters and writing sample.

Yea as I said above, I don't think an A- hurts that much. A B+ might hurt if its not in logic. I'm not sure. My experience is that there is often one professor that does not like to give As and will give an A- to nearly everyone. That happened to me. My best term paper received an A- (from pain in the butt professor) and my worst term paper of the year (different professor) an A+. I think A's are important, but I don't think a single A- will shut a person out of graduate school.

I don't have an idea, but in general, I agree with Needle in the Hay. The current slogan is vague. Something is always brewing could apply to every forum ever. We need something that covers the exhaustion (maybe not a good word) of graduate school

I also have three programs that I never got an official WL from but did not get the rejection either. I assume that I'm on some kind of slime remote WL. at any rate, I have other offers and think I would be unmoved by those. but I find it odd when they don't inform students.

Maybe you are #9 counting the 6 admits which is reall #3 on the wait lists. maybe that is what he means. I agree that #9 on a waitlist doesn't sound optimistic to me, unless they tend to admit too many students that were also accepted to NYU or something.

I still haven't heard from the University of Kentucky. I know they sent acceptances a while ago, but did anyone get a waitlist?

And some of those people who got accepted to a bunch of top 20 schools also had a degree from Tufts or Princeton. Others of us came from no name universities. Just because you got one and they got ten doesn't necessarily mean that you are behind or less smart. That isn't to underplay the strengths that those who got into ten will bring to the field; I'm sure they will be very very successful. But you can be too.

I got very little feedback too. I find it frustrating that professors help too much. It makes it such that everyone needs help to get the fair advantage and not all professors have time. The reason I didnt' get too much feed back is in December they were too busy.