SmugSnugInARug

This is a perfectly normal part of the experience. The application process is not designed to promote applicant mental health nor to provide clear, actionable feedback on your application. At best, there’s a general sense of what is valued for programs, but the whole variety of factors at play can make it extremely difficult to determine why a decision is made. This is especially true because there are often so many more applicants who are perfectly qualified than there are slots available. You could have a great application, but they may already have 6 students studying that topic, so they have to pass in favor of someone else whose focus is less represented (this example is less true for MAs, but still holds). Unfortunately, this means you have to rely on analysis that doesn’t come directly from the programs themselves. Speak with your letter writers, especially anyone who has served on a graduate acceptance committee (which can be hard when you attended an undergrad where there isn’t a graduate program). The two best things you can do for your application are: Figure out what you can do to improve your application based on general standards (do you need to edit your writing samples? Do you need to get a different letter of rec? Do you need to retake the GREs?) Make sure that the programs you are applying to are the best ‘fit’ for you, where you have the greatest chance of being picked from a pool of equally qualified applications, based on your research interests and the department specialities. (Again, this is less true for MA programs than PhDs, but it is still somewhat true.) And yeah, it sucks. I’ve been shut out before, left alone with basically no understanding of why I wasn’t successful in my application, which was a terrible feeling. You are definitely not alone in this.

The advise I was given from two separate grad acceptance committee directors is to NOT mention specific faculty members. Focus instead on the general strengths of the program. They gave several reasons: 1. If a particular faculty member currently has enough students, is secretly retiring, or even just not on the committee, you can hurt your chances. 2. If, say, you mention Kant but only mention 1 of the 2 Kantians on the faculty, you might slight the other professor. The annoying reality is that this is just a part of the process. This was emphasized to me as the most important of the reasons. 3. Unless you are actually familiar with said professor (from recent conferences, actually being familiar with their work, or other professional contexts), you might misjudge or mischaracterize them. This is apparently quite common.

This. Definitely agree. I usually have three documents. A master note document with citations, as well as quotes or even full pages from key texts. This will often include an outline. I usually make a clone of this document, and every time i use a passage or quote, i delete it from the clone so that i can keep track of what I haven’t added into the paper. An ‘operating table’ type document, where i will, say, place a key quote i want to analyze or an argument i need to summarize or refute, and do the actual writing in that document, sometimes doing several variations on the same bit to see what is successful. I let all of the detritus collect below a page break, just in case. A proper ‘essay’ document, usually written in 6-8 point font, single spaced, two pages visible, so that i can get a birds-eye view of the paper, focusing on the paper structure. As the paper comes into focus, these will slowly consolidate into a single document, at which point I shift to editing.

I guess the thing I’d offer is that if one person on a committee is a stickler for page-length (and who hasn’t run into a professor like that?) that person is gonna throw out your application. So while there might be many successful applicants who get in because they never got those people, do you really want to risk it? Do you want to be one of the 1/5/10% of applicants this happens to? Obviously pinning down a number on this percentage is (basically) impossible, but the risk just isn’t worth it. And I get it, cutting sucks, its so hard, but its really an essential skill.

One resource worth mentioning here, I think, is the Unlikely Academics podcast. The primary audience of the podcast is people who are under-represented, from non-research intensive schools, or are first generation post-grad students. The focus skews a bit more to advocating for those under-represented from rural areas, it does try to provide information to a broader audience. It should also be paired with podcasts like Blk + In Grad School which covers some other elements. They try to address issues from how to approach applications, to the unspoken cultural norms of grad school, and even how to talk to friends who didn’t get in during a round of applications.

I don’t know if any of the schools are up your alley philosophically, but some schools have joint Phil. MA/Law degree programs (including Georgetown, Stanford, UCLA, Boston College, Duke, and Duquesne and i’m sure plenty more).

My undergrad degree was in analytic philosophy, my MA was in a music department (at an analytic-ish school), and I got an MA in a very heavy continental program and now I’m at a heavy duty continental PhD. I’d certainly agree with @HomoLudens: they care more about expressed interest, a general background in philosophy writ large, and potential than they do about expertise.

However, it is worth noting that a second MA in a related field does offer benefits. In my own cohort, 2/4 have two MAs. One is philosophy + one is political theory, for myself I have an MA in Philosophy and one from a music department. Several people in my 2nd MA (Philosophy) came into philosophy with MAs in Psychology or equivalent degrees from Divinity schools (M.Div, I think is what its called?). However, in all those cases it has been degrees that contribute to their primary interests (Psychoanalysis, Religious Phenomenology, Political Philosophy, etc.) the returns on the same degree, however, are quite limited except, as mentioned above, if you are going to the States from not a well-known (by American faculty) program, trying to get into the US system.

At Duquesne the TAs largely sit in on the virtual classes, hold office hours via zoom (either by appointment or by a set time), occasionally cover a class, and do the grading. Fortunately it’s been relatively straightforward.

The stipend is fine, largely because Pittsburgh is cheap enough. Its neither a pro nor a con. Faculty are all pretty great, but with one or two worth avoiding. Selcer in particular is spectacular. Evans is retiring, but will continue to teach one grad class/yr, and can still be on committees. We get to know the profs pretty well. I got in off the top of the waitlist. It feels like an academic island in a Catholic sea. The students are great and there’s a definitely a feeling of community, but the school at large runs into the usual problems Academia and Catholicism run into. If you want more specifics, DM me.

I’d be happy to talk with anyone about it. (Current Duq PhD)

Given the cancellations, I just want to put it out there that I’m more than happy to talk to anyone who wants to learn more about Duquesne and Boston College.

For whatever it’s worth, I had a similar experience of a very personal, warm waitlist email from Duquesne, because I was #1 on the waitlist (and because faculty at most Pittsburgh schools are lovely people).

As of right now, no idea, but I’ll keep an ear out.

Congratulations! As a current PhD at Duquesne, I’d be happy to answer any questions you might have.