gughok

I met with one of my professors a few days ago and asked him at one point, "is it true that GREs can only hurt?" He glanced around surreptitiously as though to make sure nobody was listening (we were alone in his office), leaned his head forward like he was about to tell me some damning secret, and answered in a low voice, "the truth is, when the admissions committees go over their applications, some people don't even look at the GRE at all." So yeah.

I believe the official time frame given is 10-15 days after you take the test. For what it's worth, I took mine on the 10th, got my AWA on the 18th, and confirmation that my scores had been sent to my four free choices on the 21st. Taking the test on November 2nd, you'll definitely have plenty of time to look at your scores before deciding to send them. However, you would likely not have the time to take the test again, if that turns out to be necessary.

I can't say that I've used the Magoosh quantitative practice but I can attest to the actual GRE: there are plenty of trivial problems, but also a few that actually demand you stop to think. This is coming from a former math and physics major who still has a minor in math, and who did well on the quantitative section: there are going to be problems that you will not see through immediately. Unless Magoosh is feeding you problems on diagonalizing matrices or solving for the x-intercepts of a rational function, it seems unlikely they're overstating the challenge of the quantitative GRE. I know that the practice I did (the free Kaplan test that comes with GRE registration) was much easier than the actual GRE. Just my two cents.

Let me preface with the disclaimer that I'm merely an undergraduate, so I cannot say I've left the country for graduate work. Nevertheless I hope I will not be begrudged this advice I can't help but offer. Something in particular struck me in your post: On the basis of this information alone I would almost recommend that you go somewhere else for the sake of not being where you've spent your whole life. But I'll spare you the "be an adventurer" rhetoric and try to speak as objectively as possible about things. Almost inevitably, if you want to succeed in academia, you're going to have to move away from home. Whether it's for your undergrad (as it was for me), for graduate studies, or when you finally land a job, you don't have an aristocrat's picking of location. Even a miracle-worker of a scholar who receives pleas from every good university in the world to join their faculty will need to choose from among those universities - and it's practically inevitable that the choice will take them away from home. As for support systems, the ability to build and maintain these networks wherever you go and whoever you're around is critical to a healthy life. It is with no intent of harshness that I say now: your current support system will only last as long as the people in it happen to still be around you. And once someone leaves for whatever reason, you have to replace them. That is, for better or for worse, how the world runs. Life comes with anxieties. Delaying them is an exercise in futility. Learning to cope with and overcome them is, on the other hand, a vital skill to develop. And who knows? A lot of anxieties are fear of unknowns. It may turn out not so bad in the end. A lot of my classmates dealt with their separation from home very comfortably. For many of them it was almost a relief. Most now might call back weekly. I'm very attached to my mother so I still call her several times a day, and it was at first tough adjusting to her absence, but I got past it quickly enough and now the distance doesn't bother me (though I can't say the same for her, alas). My point being, eventually you'll have to deal with homesickness, loss of support systems, et cetera. You don't achieve much by trying to set those ineluctable events aside for their later appearance. There is ultimately not a net profit for you there. But moreover, if you rule out graduate study abroad because of your anxieties, you risk losing so many opportunities which may otherwise open for you a plethora of doors. The pain of leaving home may last a few days, weeks, or even months, but education at an amazing institution specializing in your field will last you your lifetime. You would not regret it.

I'm also unsure - the professors I've spoken to have said an MA would help my own chances, so while it's plausible there may be an occasional faculty member with the negative view you quote, at least from what I've heard the opposite is also a common opinion. Considering it myself, it seems especially strange that one would take a student to have been "molded" by a terminal MA if it was a non-research degree, i.e. awarded on coursework (such as Toronto's MA). In this case the MA is basically an extended BA, so unless one's undergraduate work is also held against them for a certain amount of "molding"...

Great, thank you all so much! I have my mind set on applying to several master's level programs, and since the application materials are almost identical to what one would require for a PhD, this tells me that - cost aside - it couldn't hurt to simultaneously try for some of my top choice PhD programs. Now I just need to actually get my applications ready... oh dear...

Suppose I applied to a particular PhD program this year and was rejected. Next year, I reapply. Does the fact that I've been rejected once already prima facie affect their decision? Obviously there are additional factors to account for, such as whether I have improved anything in my applications. So, if the original question is too vague to answer, then let me try this phrasing: In world A I apply this year to a particular PhD program, am rejected, and reapply next year with noticeably improved materials. In world B I do not bother applying this year, still improve my materials exactly the same way, and apply for the first time the next year. Is there a difference between the two worlds in terms of my chances of admission next year?

My situation is virtually identical to yours. I have an excellent Philosophy GPA, great GRE, even good recommendations, but I don't have the powerful writing sample I need for a top program. All the advice I've received from professors and other students can be summed up in probably three points: 1. A gap year cannot hurt - admissions committees, at worst, will not care that you took the year 2. Used well, a gap year will help you - with time to improve your materials, such as your writing sample, as you mentioned 3. If you can fill the year with an MA (terminal or otherwise), that will probably help you even more, as admissions committees will see that you'll have that preparation (even if it's only in progress at the time of your application), and you can use your professors there to optimize your application materials To this effect I'm hoping to do an MA at Toronto next year. Given the advice I've received I'd recommend to you that you at least take a gap year, and if possible do a preparatory MA. If you don't think you have the best writing sample you can produce right now, and you believe that by waiting for the next application cycle you can make that best sample, do not waste your time with PhD applications this year. Take the year.

Oh. Uh. Well then. Thanks for the answer. I sure hope I unchecked that option but I can't remember whether I did. I guess I'll find out if I get the same flood of ads. Thanks again!

Kaplan Practice Test 1, timed (or whatever the free practice tests you get with registration are): 167V 169Q Actual GRE: 170V170Q, waiting on AW Study time: ~six hours (one hour looking through the free examples of each type of question the weekend two weeks before my test, plus the practice test eight days before my actual test) The real GRE was definitely harder than the practice test, but I think I was taking it more seriously. The difficulty actually made it more stimulating, I would say, and almost fun.

Many of you will have had the experience, in high school, of receiving flyers and brochures in the mail from universities trying to attract you for undergraduate study. These institutions will often choose who to send their advertisements to on the basis of high school average, SAT or ACT scores, et cetera. My question is whether something analogous happens with GREs - especially with the four free score reports. I did well enough that I think I'd stand out, as far as GREs are concerned, in those four departments to which I sent my scores when I took the test. Is this something they might take notice of, or will it simply be that they'll have my scores already on record when I actually apply to their graduate programs?

I happened to talk to my department's Director of Graduate studies, who's on the graduate admissions committee, last week about my own application plans. He advised me that even with a committee, "if you gather three people together, they aren't going to agree on what is most important". He said he personally valued GRE over GPA, "but that may just be because I had a poor GPA and great GREs". In his case, GREs could both help and hurt - others may only heed GREs if they're particularly poor, as you suggest. I would avoid making sweeping claims about GREs and, nerve-wracking as it may be, simply say that you try to do your best on them and leave it at that. Nice - when did you take it? I took mine last Saturday (10th), waiting on AW nervously.

I'm on track to graduate with my BA this coming spring, and I'm considering completing a preparatory MA instead of applying straight to a PhD program, to make sure I'm ready. Has anybody had any experience with the University of Toronto's master's program in philosophy? I've seen conflicting reports: some say, as I expect, that being a master's student in a grad program that offers PhDs results in a lot of marginalization and a difficult experience. Others say that while it's intense, if you proverbially get your foot in the door of your professors, you'll do fine. I feel like this is something I should know about before entering the program so I'm hoping someone can enlighten me with further explanation.

Thank you both for your replies! This is helpful reassurance.

Hey folks, Looks like I'm a little bit late to the party, which is a disconcertingly persistent theme in my life, but alas. I'm a fourth-year Linguistics and Philosophy major at Cornell. I started out as a Physics/Phil major, swam through Math, and have only been in Linguistics for about three semesters (I took our intro class and was sucked in with no regrets but that I hadn't found the field earlier - did I mention I'm often late to parties?). I'm debating between which of my majors I want to continue in graduate school, and more seriously faced with the problem that as a newcomer to Linguistics my available collection of writing samples is pretty sparse and, in my opinion, thoroughly unimpressive. As a result I'm not yet set on applying this cycle, but I don't know how much I'd benefit from a gap year (which I would spend, in large, working on improving my application materials). If I apply, the subfields I'm most interested in are semantics, philosophy of language, and historical linguistics (I generally gravitate toward the theoretical, and I don't think I'd much like doing field work or running experiments - I speak from experience in the latter). I don't know which programs are strong in historical, but for the former two my list of ideal schools is topped by Rutgers, NYU, MIT, and Michigan. Looking forward to plenty of nail-bitingly nervous conversations with everyone!

Hey everybody, I've heard TGC has been quiet this year but I thought I'd try to make my contribution. I haven't actually decided if I'm applying for this cycle - I'm currently trying to choose between going for it or taking a year off, which is quite the conundrum. I'm a fourth-year Linguistics and Philosophy major at Cornell, though I started out studying Physics and waded through some Math. I'd really love to work on philosophy of mind and AI at somewhere like NYU or Rutgers but I don't fancy my chances much at the moment. One question: signatures? I saw instructions somewhere for how to make one, but I couldn't figure it out, and I saw elsewhere that they've been disabled.

So I'm a fourth-year undergraduate at a pretty well-known university studying linguistics and philosophy, and I'd like to continue with philosophy at the best PhD program I can get into. I feel like my application materials, especially my writing sample, could be improved substantially if I apply next year instead of this cycle. Assuming this is the case, what do philosophy admissions people at institutions like Rutgers, NYU, Princeton, MIT (I'm interested in Philosophy of Mind) think, prima facie, when they see a student has taken a gap year (if anything at all)? Would taking the year, of itself, hurt, improve, or make no difference to my chances? And how do those answers change if I can show I've spent the time well? If more information is required, here are some details: I started out as a Physics and Philosophy major. I've meandered through Math and CS so I have a wide background. The trade-off is that until recently I didn't really get into my philosophy major and actually had a three semester hiatus from philosophy classes (but I'm into it with a passion now) so I have only decent and not genuinely exceptional (in my opinion) writing samples. I also have only cursory familiarity with most philosophy professors in my department, though there should be three from whom I can get good LORs by the end of the semester. These, too, would be improved if I take the year. My cumulative GPA is 4.03, something similar in the major. I took the GRE today, unofficial scores are 170 170. I've had people tell me a lot of it is simply whether I want to take the year off or not. I'm still figuring that part out. I think if I can get into my top choices this cycle I'd go for that, otherwise I'd probably just rather take the year to improve what I can. I'd really appreciate any advice =/