alopachuca

A lot of people are in this same situation, or will find themselves there soon enough if they're not satisfied with their application results. It's a little different for me since I'm on a two-year hiatus and I honestly don't know if I'll even end up applying next year. I might end up choosing a different field of grad studies because I don't find it likely that I'll enjoy the non-academic private sector long-term.

I actually have little knowledge of the recent hate. I've come across links to the issues in his and other blogs but nowadays I skip most of them because I simply don't care. As someone who is completely indifferent to (and ignorant of) the recent hate badwagon, all I wanted to say is that the guy has always done a good job of coming across as a complete asshole (based on the way he has written about his cyber-battles in the past). Frankly I'm really surprised an academic is so immersed in that kind of drama.

In regards to the question of whether posting the letters is somehow unprofessional, wrong, or an invasion of privacy: I don't need to share your professional trajectory to answer this question. The letters are fairly standard and generic, tailored only in the sense that they'll have to be sent to a broad audience. In the odd occasion that they do contain sensitive information, people should definitely omit it. I don't doubt that candidates sometimes do things that put their trustworthiness in question but I don't think posting generic letters on gradcafe calls anyone's trustworthiness into question. In regards to the descriptive claims you make about your experiences, fair enough. In this case I don't think anyone should feel their privacy has been compromised, but perhaps a few people would. Also, I don't buy that adcoms lurk gradcafe (not that it would matter to me). Professors have admitted they don't even give a consistently close reading to the entire writing sample, which is the most important part of an application. So I'm having trouble believing they'd borrow from that time to browse the forums.

My personal view on this, by all means be dismissive. The comment by Sigaba is ridiculous, considering that (like you've already said) there's hardly anything private about these letters. If any of them did contain sensitive information (they don't), I trust that everyone here would have the good judgment to omit that information. Some people are so soft.

Just wanted to say I almost broke out in applause and I'm alone in the house. It's just ridiculous that people started arguing that it wouldn't be necessary or at least useful.

Has anyone considered doing grad school in a different field?

I've suspected this myself. Maybe it's not a prevalent attitude but I've seen it in undergrad. One professor said very casually to me, "I've noticed that the best students, they don't get good grades". I know mostly everyone here would object to that, but keep in mind he was speaking anecdotally. Who knows if we can draw any parallel between what some departments look for when they're hiring compared to when they're handing out grad acceptances. But if we can, professors have said that departments don't care about grades even close to as much as they care about hiring people who will be good professors. (David Schmidtz said in his advice on the academic job market that people don't receive offers because they're boring). I asume that an applicant's ability to produce mature, creative, interesting work might, in some eyes, outweigh an imperfect grade history. I actually remember a couple of classes where I read with deeper rigor, had better insights, and generally put in a lot more work than some of my friends and peers, and yet they were getting better grades because they were strategic about how much work they did (for example, how many readings they could skip, how many lectures they could skip, etc.). Grades, I think, can be more telling of an applicant's ability to get work done, maintain good work habits, prioritize with large workloads, and meet deadlines responsibly. Which is also very important.

I wanted to reply with some personal comments to this section. I think there is a lot of practical value (although indirect) in doing a couple of years of in-depth, rigorous, philosophical study. In other words, I think there's value to be gained from philosophy beyond learning some fallacies and being able to apply ethical theories. Any person fresh out of undergrad philosophy will find that they're actually very adaptable, creative, good negotiators, and usually good writers, communicators, learners. But yes, these and other practical skills are not benefitted beyond an undergraduate education, at least not for the non-academic workforce. So I would say no one should sell their undergraduate education short, while also realizing that spending some years in graduate study only to leave will generally never be as beneficial as spending that time in the workforce. Here's a link to 2013's plan B thread. There are some helpful anecdotal posts and some thought on alternatives like law school or finding work out of undergrad. A personal thought on the thread: There's a general sentiment that a BA in philosophy is stigmatized. I disagree with the sentiment. It might not work wonders for you straight out of undergrad, but neither will anything else outside of STEM. I graduated in May, worked for the summer and started job hunting around September/October. Yes, it's been hell. But not only for me. I have many friends who opted for Econ/Bio/Chem/PoliSci/etc. and it has been more or less the same for all of us. Dozens of applications over a few months, and 3-5 interviews each, with each employer taking forever to make a decision. We all either got part-time jobs, job offers with temp. places, or are still looking. I'm in the last of these categories since I'm looking for employment out of state, which requires a lot of patient waiting. My friends and I, with some help from mentors, have agreed that a recent grad should be applying to hundreds of jobs, not just a few dozen.

I think a rejection thread and a "What's your Plan B" thread would be useful. This might be blunt but I'm sure at least some of the people who post here are in a position where they'll likely move on from philosophy barring a satisfactory offer. I'm really curious to hear what everyone has to say on the topic (although I understand it's an uncomfortable one at this stage).

Well the big sermon, while directed at everyone, was almost exclusively about the loudmouth's attitude. There was already agreement (at least between students and TAs) that something had to be done, but I think the walkout is what finally got the professor to bring up the issue. It's embarrassing you know... being told to learn to have a basic conversation. I've had other courses with a couple of aggressive pricks but this class was the most severe case.

Thanks for the information! It actually seems believable to me that this happens sometimes. My intuition is that it doesn't happen very much. I can't imagine any applicants from MA programs not taking their work seriously, which includes being honest about one's work and ability. In any case, these professors should also express worry about students coming from lower faculty-student ratio undergraduate programs having more thoroughly "coached" samples than other undergrads. Just seems to be one of the imperfections of the admissions process.

I just want to quote and emphasize this comment to avoid any misunderstandings. Based on some of our comments, it might seem like philosophy classes are generally hostile environments. I would say that while the trend is there, more often than not you'll have students who genuinely want to engage in the material. It really only takes 2-4 students who have no respect for conversation to ruin a lecture or a discussion. A couple of years ago, I took a class in theory of meaning. There was one hostile student always objecting to absolutely everything. Well I remember one day I was sitting in lecture and we were all groaning and such because he wouldn't shut up. 15 minutes before the end of lecture I decided I'd had enough and I grabbed my things and walked out. The next lecture the professor spent about half an hour explaining that we needed to learn how discussions work. I really respected the professor after that, although it was an embarrassing experience.

It might be different in grad courses, but at least in undergrad it was pretty clear to me that the philosophy department had the greatest number of aggressive and non-approachable students. I took upper-division classes in several departments and something I always noticed was how stress-free I felt in classes and discussions in other departments. I can think of a couple of philosophy classes that were somewhat ruined by aggressive students. The very few grad students I knew personally said the trend was worse in the graduate seminars. I used to argue often in non-philosophy discussions and I was never classified as an aggressive student. I think you're right that part of the issue is that some students who aren't used to argumentation might take things personally, but it's not the whole story.

I can't think of a good reason why they would be. The better news (I think) is that it's getting to be common for applicants to have them, so adcoms will just have to get used to the trend anyway. On the topic of MAs, I think it's worth pointing out the time investment. If the following is incorrect, someone please correct me and I'll edit my comment. What I know is that (in the US) your coursework during your MA won't count significantly (often not at all) to your required coursework once you're in at a PhD program. How big a deal this is will depend on each candidate. For me, it's a deal breaker. That's even assuming I'd finish an MA in 2 years (which apparently is becoming less common). That's 2 years on top of the few years people are spending on their PhDs. I love philosophy, but I don't want to spend close to another decade being a student. The UK is an option for those who are sympathetic to this mentality, but then you have a funding problem.

I share your feelings about being away completely from philosophy. I felt great just because a friend asked me for help with a paper a couple of months ago. It's hard to find ways to emulate that. I don't think I ever introduced myself to the board but I'm sitting out for 2 years. And all I can do is wish you all a safe, low-stress end to your application process. Good luck everyone.

Hi, someone posted a video in the "2015 Applicants Assemble" thread. You might have seen it since you've browsed the forum before. If you haven't, it's worth the time. It's just straightforward, practical advice for applicants from a UCSD professor. What I've gathered is this: the advantage it gives you will depend on who is reading your application. That being said, it will give you an advantage. And how much of an advantage it gives you, well that will be more dependent on who is ranking your application. "Will it be seen as an attempt to garner an advantage over other applicants?" Well yes, that's precisely the reason why you would want to bring it up (and this is why they give you the option to do so). I suppose more accurately, it's an attempt to strengthen your application. They understand this. Now if you honestly think being homeless hasn't impacted you neither negatively nor the opposite, you can simply choose to not mention it. But that's completely your decision. Personally, I'm more interested in why you believe coming from a low income East Asian family doesn't warrant you the right to have an advantage. You didn't specifically say that it doesn't, but it's implied.

I think that while officially an A+ only counts as a 4.0, some grad schools will count it as a 4.33. That just opens up the question, then how do you get a 4.5? I did undergrad there, none of us ever got A+s. I once got an A- on a paper because one of my sentences was a bit redundant. I'm not kidding.

In your research, have you come across data for the percentage of visible minorities in graduate school who come from high SES backgrounds? I suspect it's very high but I don't have the numbers.

I did mean whether your department took up blind grading as a rule, but regardless I was curious to hear what others' experience has been with blind grading. So blind grading as a custom would work also. Like I said, I'm not sure if my department established blind grading but every graduate student (the people who grade my papers) started doing it a few semesters ago. Also, I don't think I completely understand why you're against blind grading. I think what you're saying is that it becomes more difficult for your grader to give you feedback that is exclusive to you (for example, comments that are sensitive to your past papers). If that's what you mean, I do understand that worry. But I think the grading is generally more fair if blind. Yes, you lose out a little on the feedback that you get but there's a difference between the feedback and the grade, the grades being the issue in this case. I don't see it as a great disadvantage of blind grading that your evaluator can no longer grade comparatively to your past work. (And in fact, I'm not sure that this type of comparative grading is the best way to go anyway.) Ironically, I rarely followed the prompts for my paper topics so my topics had to be approved by my TA. That, coupled with revisions during office hours, meant they usually always knew which paper was mine anyway.

Did either of you study in departments that implemented blind grading? I would have thought it should be universal at this point but my own department didn't implement it until about 4 semesters ago. I actually don't know it it was implemented or if the graduate students took matters into their own hands. Fun fact, my grades actually did go up after blind grading. I don't blame that specifically though, since I did get a lot better at writing during that time. Anyway, my apologies to those who aren't interested in this issue.

The issue of URM acceptances is so complex, I wouldn't know where to begin. I think one point to take from the conversation about minorities is that there are a number of things that puts them at a disadvantage (generally), some more burdensome than others + some not exhaustive. An American 3rd generation URM with college-educated parents might deal with issues of how s/he is perceived. It's not a controversial statement to make. On the other hand, an American 1st generation URM who went to a high school with a high dropout rate and low college placement and pretty much played catchup for 4-5 years in university (some of them going through community college in the process) deals with disadvantages far more serious (in addition to issues of perception). Most of the people in the latter category will never be interested in philosophy. Seriously, how does anyone from South Central decide to go major in philosophy? (If they make it to college in the first place.) I congratulate any URM who had a chance to suffer prejudice in college. Many others never even made it that far.

I think that speculating in those matters is a bit paranoid. I suspect those schools will want you to come up with the money regardless of where you're coming from. I remember when I was looking into LSE, I came across a couple of paragraphs in their section for international student that basically said (not verbatim obviously), 'If you don't have the funds, please consider whether you should even apply'. That was one of the most honest and straightforward things I'd ever read on a university page.

Unless they explicitly state that not answering those questions could affect your application somehow, don't worry about it. It's not like they're oblivious to the current state of academic philosophy. Many students are applying to several programs.

Philosophy adcoms seem a bit mysterious about some of their criteria (including how renown your letter writers are). It's obvious that it shouldn't matter if your letter writers aren't that well known in the field. I suspect you don't need to be a renown name to have the ability of giving some honest words on why so-and-so applicant would fare well in a specific program (and well, isn't that the point of the letters anyway?) I went to an undergrad that (I believe) has a top 10 program in the Leiter rankings this year. I don't feel like I have any sort of advantage just because some of my professors (and letter writers) are known in the field.

Out of curiosity, when you say 100+ books on your own, you're referring to relevant philosophy texts (by this I mean the types of books you would read in a philosophy program anyway)? I personally haven't read even near to 100 philosophy books cover to cover. That's really impressive. As for your question, MAs are often recommended to students in your situation, along with students with low philosophy GPAs or weak writing samples. Would definitely be the right plan. Funding might be an issue for you. Don't waste money or time applying to PhD programs.