alopachuca

You know something, back when I had first started my upper-division courses and I naively treated philosophy (and anyone involved in it) as the holy grail, I wouldn't have thought that the sort of crap you dealt with in the newsroom existed anywhere in academic philosophy. I mean, I was learning from some of the brightest people around and some of them were ethicists, so it felt safe. But I also made a ton of female friends in the department, and once they confided in me, I learned that sometimes the older male professors say some really stupid things to females. Not all of it was malicious, and I'd say most of it isn't. I'm Latin American (and I look like it, as incorrect as that phrase may be), and I've never been told anything stupid of the sort my female philosophy friends were told.

I've read differing accounts (not necessarily contradictory but they do seem to imply different things) on how significant an advantage is for underrepresented groups in academic philosophy generally. To kind of vaguely address questions 1 & 2... What I've read by Schwitzgebel and Leiter is that the advantage is pretty insignificant when it comes to hiring decisions. I can't really get into specifics without making mistakes because it's been a while since I last read up on the topic. However, it seems generally true that promoting underrepresented groups to apply or department-level objectives to diversify the department get URMs as far as interviews, and anything beyond that is not decided with a special focus on diversity. As far as grad admissions, the Colorado philosopher who wrote the "Should I Go to Graduate School in Philosophy?" says that there's a lot of affirmative action pressure around departments. I don't know how old that FAQ is but it doesn't seem to have too much of an effect on most of the graduate student pools I've looked at. Perhaps the most success for diversity has been in admitting or hiring women. To address question 3... I honestly still haven't made up my mind. It would be helpful to know how philosophy departments deal with the promotion of diversity, and we don't know a lot about that. Generally, I will say that I'm skeptical of the benefits gained from the type of diversity that is promoted in other graduate or professional programs. For example, law admissions are pretty transparent: If you're a Black, Mexican, Native, or Puerto Rican, you get a big boost. Percentages don't matter, so you can imagine that anyone whose great uncle was 25% black will be checking the box (those who think I exaggerate, I urge you to go to Top Law Schools and look at the topics in the underrepresented forum). Giving boosts to that kind of diversity is useless. For the record, I highly doubt this is how it works in philosophy. I'm just giving an example of something I believe doesn't benefit anyone.

OP, since the comments have wandered a bit off the main concern, I think the simplest (although not the most insightful) comment I can offer you (can't speak for anyone else) is that this is a field in which, for better or worse, there are always going to be more applicants with good recommendations, good writing samples, and good grades than can be admitted into a given program. Assuming you have the first two, the last point still puts you at a disadvantage over some students who will eventually be rejected (hypothetically of course). That being said, you should do your research and eventually work hard on your applications and send them in. I don't think anyone is automatically denied for having a 2.91.

I spent many hours on that argument during Metaphysics class last year. One of my favorite singular topics during undergrad.

For my own curiosity, what about those places seemed awful once you got the real scoop?

I think community college is a good topic to bring up. CognitiveAesthetics, you mentioned you want to work in academia, and if that means doing research and not just focusing on teaching, keep in mind that lower ranked MA programs do correlate (although not always) with lower ranked placement, which is going to have consequences if your focus is research. (Whether they correlate because the students in those programs have less impressive applications to PhD programs or because departments themselves will use the low rank as a telling point, I really don't know). What I've gathered from friends that are full-time faculty at my old CC is that opportunities are looking a bit scarce there also. Some people will be hired for full-time positions but a lot of others stay as adjuncts for several years.

Just wanted to say this is amazing! That must be nearly every single undergraduate course right? Wish I'd had the time to take even half the undergrad classes while I was still a student.

I lose focus if someone around me sneezes. So music is out of the question. Rap is the worst for me. I was raised with it, and start feeling the need to rep my area and other silly things. I should know better than that at this point.

jjb919, Thanks for the response. I do appreciate the sentiment. (Not to so say your comment is only a sentiment, because you make good points). I'm confident I'll make it work. philosopheme, I think what I'm struggling with is precisely this decision of whether to expand something I've already written or start from scratch. You mention I should consider whether any of my papers are of requisite quality. Admittedly, I don't know what to look for in this case. I would say several of my papers are philosphically mature, well organized, and show some philosophical independence. But when I brought up some of the topics I was hoping to expand with one of my letter writers, this person advised against these topics because they weren't "hot topics" in the field. (To what extent picking a hot topic will be necessary, I still need to figure out). I think I need a bit more research in what adcoms will be looking for precisely in the writing sample. Thank you very much for the response.

I had some friends in Berkeley who were in a similar situation - "Similar" meaning they had low GPAs. But most of them were getting low grades because of personal responsibilities (marriage, work, health, etc.). Most of us did have some trouble with the pace each semester (I can't even imagine what the quarter system students have to deal with) but my personal story is that by my final semester I was able to get As and A-s without having to dedicate more time to my classes (In fact I was spending more hours at work and recovering from a surgery). The reason I bring that up is to agree with others - your main issue is that you need to show that you'll be able to keep up in grad school.

I envy that you guys have choices of papers to condense. I have papers that are worthy of expanding a few pages, but coming out of public undergrad means most papers are short. I've been yelled at by my grad student instructors for going over the limit. Might apply strictly to MAs because of the writing sample alone.

I'm not sure how accurate it is to say that PhDs are getting a lot of the full time positions at community colleges. It might actually be true, but so far the research I've done doesn't support it. And my experience itself doesn't support it either (my full-time professors back in my community college days had MAs). It may be the case that the extra teaching experience the PhDs have upon completion of their degree (if they have community college teaching experience) puts them at an advantage. But more than anything, I think they want people who know how to teach the type of students that attend community college. That being said, at the very least the applicant pool is bigger. So you're right about that. By the way, I'm doing undergrad in Berkeley, if anyone wants to know about about the program. I'm not sure to what extent I can help, but feel free to ask questions.