Duns Eith

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?

E.g. I worked with a pilot Ethics Bowl, and my research interests are in applied ethics and philosophy of education E.g. I worked with advocacy groups for minority inclusion, and my research interests are in political philosophy and economics E.g. I have been a long time backpacker and wilderness tour guide, and my research ethics are philosophy of biology and philosophy of science

I am happy to help. Honestly, I wouldn't know. My impression has been that a thesis would matter a lot, but professors I've spoken with about this think that it isn't necessary or very important. For me, I went to a terminal MA that didn't require a thesis, and I didn't elect to do the thesis option. I didn't get into a well-ranked PhD program, but I wouldn't blame that on my program. Many of my peers who didn't do an MA thesis got offers from really, really good schools.

Here seem to be common bioethics MAs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_masters_programs_in_bioethics#United_States[51] The two programs you mentioned are on that list. Another way to go about this is to consult the list of funded MAs in philosophy, created by Geoff Pynn https://www.academia.edu/9666729/Funded_MA_Programs_in_Philosophy (also attached, in case you don't have Academia.edu account) ....and then look at some of the programs that sound enticing whether they have two or three faculty who do bioethics as a research interest (specialty ideally, competence minimum). @hector549 gave some great advice. One thing I want to emphasize is that you need to discern whether you're going for a specialization in ethics under the umbrella of "Medical Humanities". For example, this conference https://wmich.edu/medicalhumanities/events/conference2019 ... If you see past programs in the archive, you'll notice that the speakers include a blend of doctors, philosophers, counselors, nurses, etc. who have an eye toward reforming policies and being sensitive to the impact of new technologies (https://wmich.edu/sites/default/files/attachments/u755/2018/2018_Conference_Program_1.pdf). Most people there, though, are philosophically interested, but not formally trained in philosophy as a rigorous enterprise. That is, they find the topics important and urgent, but many don't necessarily know how to separate the critical questions out and untangle the issues with nuance you expect for philosophy at a graduate level. Still a good venue. Still a good network. Just pointing out a difference. Funded_MA_Programs_in_Philosophy.pdf

Congrats! I hope you love it there!

Western Michigan University has two people who do epistemology. Tim McGrew -- formal epistemology, bayesian epistemology, applied probability, historical philosophy of science (he's an internalist) https://philpeople.org/profiles/timothy-mcgrew-1 Marc Alspector-Kelly -- contemporary philosophy of science, epistemic closure (he denies it!), safety/sensitivity conditions, and so on (he's an externalist) http://homepages.wmich.edu/~malspect/

Yes. Prioritize the sample. Send it to people who will tear it to shreds with critical feedback. Then fix all of the things they mention (even the minutia you don't care about), so it will emerge a brightly burning phoenix, about which the admission committee will carry on an oral tradition.

Thanks! This looks like a helpful route. I am not trying to land a teaching gig this new academic year, I'm just thinking about future cycles (I should be done with my PhD in three years) and when I get close to finishing I want to have something lined up. So, I'm not worried about the current hiring season. I'll look into NAIS! This is good to know. Can you say more? I posted some stuff for NY state. Is that basically the same, or do you have something different in mind?

I should also say, I have some criteria before I accept such a responsibility: Must have had me for a class I was instructor of record Must have been in top 5% of the class. Must have talked with me outside of class. If a student hasn't met all these, I cannot write a good letter for them. In my ideal world, I would modify the criteria to be: Must have had me for two semester-long interactions (classes typically, but if we're on the same project for whatever reason that works too) Must have earned over grade 95% in class, or top 3 students Must have talked with me during office hours about their plans and such, not just course material.

Yes. Many times. I warn the student that my word has less weight and that they would be better off asking someone else, but if they persist I still write letters for them.

Hey, only tangentially related, but ...your advice on this site is consistently clear and helpful. It is great to have you here. Many of my posts can add nothing after you've made your rounds. Hah.

I think the answer above mine is pretty good advice. Could you say more about your field? I don't know the norms of your discipline.

Why get a second MA in philosophy? If you got an MA in philosophy you should have a pretty well-rounded basis in philosophy on a graduate level, and you should know how to research. What would a second MA get you that you didn't already get? Or did you not get a decent foundation or not learn how to do research? If it is merely to improve your chances into getting into a PhD (your OP), then your time would be better spent working on your writing sample (and GRE) and continuing to do good self-directed research. You definitely don't need a second MA to change your prospects much. It probably won't make much of a difference.

As a grad student it is becoming more and more important that the humanities is floundering in part because we aren't public-facing enough. A lot of researchers think such an orientation is demeaning, unnecessary, and irrelevant to their interests. I understand the sentiment, but I think it's wrongheaded ultimately. Here's a fun article to the conflict in academia and its apathy over falling apart: https://www.chronicle.com/interactives/20190510-academes-extinction-event But now I am thinking about how grad students are willing to get involved -myself included- in advocating for humanities in public squares and being generally more publicly oriented. However, it seems that grad students are the last people who should be putting the time and effort in on the front lines. They aren't established philosophers, so they don't have financial security. They have less expertise to bear on practical issues. They are less-likely to be invested in a particular local community either (they have not bought a house or a condo, say). In any case, I'm thinking about how I might be misguided on this point. But suppose I'm not, then how do we get academics who are our mentors to get off their duffs and make a case for their field to those who are not in their field? Is this silly to ask?

Looking into National certification standards, it looks like they won't consider my teaching in undergrad adequate at all: https://www.nbpts.org/wp-content/uploads/Guide_to_NB_Certification.pdf