Coconuts&Chloroform

You know, funnily enough, it seems mainly to be Continental philosophers who say something like this. Analytics seem much more likely to want to distinguish between what they are doing and what is being done in Continental departments...

It's a fair point, but having other papers out there shows a greater breadth of competence and interest. Good writing samples are on extremely narrow topics, and it's hard to show the full range of your specializations in a single writing sample. Additionally, what are the chances that an AdCom member is going to really read these papers? What I'm thinking is that they'll glance at a few, read the abstracts, and think 'okay, so he's also developing some ideas in fields x/y/z. Cool.' Lastly, AdComs know that students devote an enormous amount of time to revising and perfecting their writing samples, and don't expect equally-high quality out of a few term papers posted on academia.edu. Those papers may be weaker, but that's why they're not the writing sample. I have a feeling that it can only help for an AdCom member to see you as, e.g. 'the guy who does first-rate work on debates between ontological universalism and nihilism, and also has some interesting if underdeveloped ideas on Chalmers' 2D semantics', instead of just 'the guy who does first-rate work on debates between ontological universalism and nihilism'. Maybe I'm wrong though (or am unwarrantedly confident in my less-developed work). But I wonder what you think of these considerations.

So, what you're saying is that you are afraid that there are philosophers out there employing the expressions 'GPA' and 'admissions committee'.

Well, it's that time of year again - academia.edu is sending me emails telling me that various people in cities containing programs to which I applied have been googling my name and visiting my page. This is basically the only use that I have gotten out of that website thus far. The whole thing seems a bit like a scam to me. But do you think that having a good profile on this website makes any difference to AdComs? I've uploaded a bunch of my work on there, in case anyone on an AdCom would like to see some of my work other than my sample.

You should seriously reconsider this decision. The job prospects for those with degrees from Continental programs are much worse than the job prospects for those from Analytic departments. All of the most prestigious programs in the Anglo-American world, most of those in northern Europe, and an increasing number of those in Germany are Analytic departments. Analytic philosophy is also quickly making headway in France and in Italy, and is already well-established in countries like Israel, Poland, etc. Don't hitch your wagon to a fading star, even if you like the way it shines. Anyway, Analytic departments are far more open to students who want to dabble in Continental philosophy than Continental departments are open to students who want to do some Analytic philosophy (except inasmuch as the latter might like to publish trifling 'critiques' of Analytic philosophers). So if you want to maximize your prospects for success in academia, and want to do a bit of Continental philosophy at the same time, then you will be much better-off at an Analytic department.

Publishing will not help your graduate application. Publishing in general is a waste of time unless you are managing to get articles into Nous, JPhil, Mind, Phil Review, Erkenntnis, Synthese, PPR, etc. Nobody cares but you. Nobody is even reading most of the other journals. In many cases you will probably be paying to get published anyway. If you do manage to publish in a top journal, then it's unlikely that having been published will contribute to the strength of your application in any serious way. This is because you are not going to publish in a top journal unless you have an exceptional article to publish, in which case you will have an exceptional writing sample. And you are not going to have an exceptional article to publish unless you have been working closely with well-regarded professors, in which case you will have well-regarded letter-writers. And you are not going to be working closely with well-regarded professors unless you come from a decent program, in which case you will have good pedigree. So, unless you are the next Kripke, satisfaction of the necessary conditions for publishing an article in a journal that people will actually care about is already sufficient for having an extremely strong application. And if you already have an extremely strong application, then you are probably going to do very well in your applications anyway.

Congrats. How did you hear from them - email, phone call? Oh, and re: WashU: did you apply to the PNP program, or the straight philosophy program?

Wow, how unimaginative. What about 'the next Parmenides' or 'the next Berkeley'?

What else can help in a time like this but reassurance?

Congrats to those accepted! You must have really stood out in order to be accepted this quickly.

Anybody interested in exchanging samples, mainly just for reassurance? I'm at the point now where I see nothing but the flaws of my paper, and I no longer believe the people who told me it was good (I'm not sure that my advisor really did anything more than skim my most recent draft...). If anyone else is feeling similarly, it might be nice to exchange our papers and get some feedback from a fresh, unbiased, anonymous source.

Yeah, that's the thing. I didn't. I gave them a call in late March and was told that all acceptances had been sent out. So I reasoned that I must have been rejected. But I was not told that my application had been reviewed and rejected...

That's a good one. In critical periods in one's life like this I always find myself reading Ecclesiastes: "If the clouds be full of rain, they empty themselves upon the earth: and if the tree fall toward the south, or toward the north, in the place where the tree falleth, there it shall be. He that observeth the wind shall not sow; and he that regardeth the clouds shall not reap." We're all waiting to see where the tree falls.

This is a good point: if programs take logic so seriously that they require it, why would they accept any but the best students in logic? I would say to OP that this grade is a serious problem that may put top-ranked programs out of his reach. It may not, of course, but whether or not it does will depend on how much he strengthens the rest of his application. The students being admitted to the top-ten programs likely all have 4.0s, for the very good reason that 4.0 grades are a floor for top-tier students, not a ceiling. 4.0 covers everything from a fine student in the department to the very best, and top-tier programs want the very best. OP will need to have a phenomenal sample and very good letters of rec in order to make up for this grade. Or he will have to be content with a lower-ranked program. Not nice to say, but that's the reality.

On the whole, I think that your comment is spot-on, but I'm not too sure of this. As I understand things, logic grades are like a second GRE: adcoms view them as a test of your intellectual capacity for rigorous and formal work, and if yours are not As, AdComs will be likely to think that, frankly, you do not have the intellectual capacity for professional philosophy. I could be wrong, but everyone I've spoken to has told me that it is very important to have good grades in logic.

Probably worth looking into programs on the continent, then. How are your French and German?

I would be pretty worried, especially if the course is in your area of specialization. In my experience, graduate grades are quite inflated, and tend to be given according to the following criteria: A: Satisfactory to excellent work (equivalent to an undergraduate B through-A+) A-: Not quite satisfactory work (equivalent to an undergraduate B or B-) B+: Unsatisfactory work (equivalent to an undergraduate C- through C+) B: Very unsatisfactory work (equivalent to an undergraduate D through D+) B- or below: Why are you even in this program? As has been said, graduate-level grades are mainly the professor's means of communicating their satisfaction with your work to you. An A means 'no need to work harder', and can cover anything from 'good enough' to 'incredible stuff'; an A- means 'work harder', a B or B+ means 'you need to be working much harder'; and a B- or less means 'you are clearly not fit for this profession'. I don't know why the grading scale is compressed into the upper-end like this, but it is. Perhaps it's because, unlike undergraduates, almost no graduate students simply fail to attend class or turn in assignments. So we are all getting maximum participation points, which raises the lowest possible grade quite a bit. But whatever the reason, this is more or less how it works. I don't mean to give you a counsel of despair. But, at least in my program, a B+ would be a substantial mark on your record that would signal quite clearly that you had a bad semester. Other programs may of course work differently.

Don't sweat this. Have you ever seen what professional philosophers' paper drafts look like before they are sent to be refereed by journals? Find any philosopher's webpage, take a look at any papers that they have marked as 'unpublished' or 'draft for circulation', and you will be amazed how sloppy some of the grammar is. Nobody is going to reject you because of a punctuation error in your paper. What matters is whether or not it is rigorous, compelling, and scholarly.

I don't have the spreadsheet, but it's easy enough to go the the results page for philosophy, and search for the school in which you're interested. Typically people do not wait very long to post their results, lol.

I've seen this in years past, but not this year, so I thought I'd put one up. This is a thread for 2019 applicants to vent their post-submission frustrations, anxieties and hopes; to spread rumors about the mysterious machinations in which AdComs are now engaged; and to offer each other support as we wait out the limbo in which we will be kept for the coming months. I'll begin: in 2016 I applied to a very small handful of schools, with NYU as my top choice. I ended up going for an MA and trying again. But when submitting my application to NYU this year, I noticed that the status of my 2016 admission was "Awaiting Payment". WTF? Did they ever even consider my application that year? I spent months that year religiously checking my email and thegradcafe, hoping to find out when they would accept or reject me. Could it all be because I forgot to pay them?

It'll hurt your application somewhat, only because it's not likely that your letters of recommendation will be written by anybody whose name carries much weight, to be frank. A sterling letter of recommendation from your CO, attesting to your work ethic, commitment to long-term projects, and intellectual aptitude, is likely to do you more good than a comparable letter from an online professor. However, being on active duty in the service is about the best reason one can possibly have for getting their degree from an online diploma mill. It's hard to imagine how this can be held against you, especially if you take care to discuss the point in your personal statement. Even then, however, top-tier programs will want to see some evidence of successful work at a respected department before they admit you. So your best bet is to invest heavily in applying to terminal MAs: these are much more friendly to students who have nonstandard backgrounds, and they understand that many of their students are applying to terminal MA programs for the purpose of building their pedigree for future applications. Tufts has a long record of accepting students from the Army. These are commissioned officers posted to Tufts on active duty before being stationed as instructors at West Point, so their situation is a bit different from yours, but their experience with military students (who often were not undergraduate majors in philosophy, or are six-to-eight years out of school) is a point in your favor. Since Tufts is also the universally-acknowledged best terminal MA in the country, it should be very high on your list. What is your MOS? It doesn't make a direct difference, but you're more likely to obtain a relevant letter if you work in a rear-echelon capacity than if you are a rifleman, simply because the work is more comparable to academic study. Again, though, being a grunt is about as good a reason to not have experience relevant to academic study as there is, so don't worry about this. Since you are only a junior: is there any possibility that you might be able to take night courses at a more well-regarded university during your enlistment? Even just auditing will help, since the important point is to build a relationship with someone who can write you a good letter.

Still presuming I'm rejected from NYU, but can't make visiting and moving plans until I have it confirmed and can rule out having to make a visit. These mid-March notifications are pretty rough.

Anyone else take time off after undergrad and now feel a bit rusty in anticipation of graduate visits? I haven't done much serious philosophy, other than work on my writing sample, in over a year, and I fear that it shows. Surely people have faced this in the past. Is this nothing to worry about? Or should I take the next couple of weeks to brush up and get my mind back into good philosophical form? For example, if I plan to meet with philosopher P during a graduate visit, and have forgotten (for the time being) the arguments in papers of P's that I read during undergrad, is it a good idea to brush up on these? Or is there really not much nuts-and-bolts philosophy discussed during these visits?

What stats do you mean?

There are two relevant conditions here, IMO: 1) It's at least a week into March when you intend to solicit. 2) Decisions were released no later than a week before you intend to solicit. (1) is satisfied, so if (2) is, as well, I'd say go ahead.