hector549

Whoa, pretty cool, thank for sharing!

Sadly, the site used to be more searchable, but somewhere along the line some developer or other broke the search functionality. You can still search the forum for individual words, but not strings of words. It makes finding useful discussion much harder. Anyway, here's an old "plan B" thread to peruse if you're worried about getting shut out and trying to come up with an alternative. There's some fun discussion here: And this one has some great advice about reapplying from @MentalEngineer

Since there are separate threads now, maybe we can still get a mod to close this one to comments.

@Prose is correct. Do not go to the MAPH program. All they're trying to do by offering you admittance to MAPH is to flatter you with an acceptance to Chicago so that you become a cash cow for the university. Just for fun, I took a look at the MAPH program page. Total tuition is $58k. That's right. $58k, for a one-year MA program. Their estimated fees and expenses are an additional $30k. Take a look here. Oh yeah, and if you're thinking "maybe I'll get funding," think again. The most they give out is half-tuition funding (and I bet that that is rare!).That still leaves you with roughly a $60k bill instead of a $90k bill. Madness. At my MA, the TA workload is light, and I make enough from my stipend to pay for all my basic bills. If that isn't enough to dissuade you, take a look at their placement page. See any problems? Their PhD "placement" for philosophy simply lists programs that some students have gotten into in the past. This is a huge red flag. Any MA program with decent placement will list all outcomes by year. Take a look here and here for examples of legitimate placement records. If all that isn't enough to make you think twice, consider this--MAPH is a one-year program. That presents a distinct disadvantage to you if you're planning to apply to PhD programs. Before you even start the program, you'll have to begin the application process. If you're planning on getting letters from Chi professors, that'll prove difficult, since they will have known you only for a few months, and won't have really seen your work. Even if they agree to write you letters, it's not clear how they'd be substantive letters. Furthermore, you won't really have the support/time in a one-year MA to work on a writing sample. At my MA, there's quite a lot of support for us writing our samples, and time to get lots of feedback on them from faculty, since the program is two years. Bottom line: there's absolutely no reason to go to an unfunded master's program in philosophy. There are plenty of funded, excellent programs out there. Start here if you haven't already. If you're worried about getting shut out, apply to more of the funded MA programs from the linked list. It's not too late, as many of them have later deadlines than PhD programs (e.g., Western Michigan and U. of Houston both have Feb. 15 application deadlines). In case you haven't guessed, I have a huge problem with unfunded MA programs in philosophy. Chicago isn't the only offender here. NYU has a similar cash cow MA program in bioethics, and Columbia has an unfunded philosophy MA as well. These universities use their name recognition to get students to pay exorbitant amounts for a degree that will likely do very little from them. Don't be blinded by the Chicago name. MA programs like Georgia State, W. Michigan, Northern Illinois, etc. are much more prestigious within academic philosophy, and much more serious with respect to making you better at philosophy than MAPH despite being part of otherwise quite modest regional public universities.

It's not unheard of to get a two-year MA (e.g. in an American program) after getting a one-year MA (say at a UK or other European school).

No, I don't think so. The score report to my knowledge just contains the score information and date of the test for whichever test scores you chose to submit.

I know someone on these boards scored a 144Q and still got into some good PGR programs (a 144 is the 16th percentile, by the way). Yeah, a 148Q is still a bit low, but I don't think I'd sweat it too much since your verbal is high (and assuming your AWA is also good), as long as the rest of your application is strong. Also, I suspect committees would be more concerned if you were applying and trying to do something like logic with a low quant score.

Yes, the POI responded positively and was willing to work with me, even though my interests were more adjacent than overlapping.

This is good advice. I once asked a POI "would you supervise my work if I'm accepted," but only because the POI's work was merely related to my own interests, and not coextensive. If you're worried about an impending retirement or what the POI's disposition is like, you're usually better served by reaching out to a grad student.

Some good thoughts here. However, keep in mind that BC doesn't fund its MA students, so it's not a good option for an MA. You shouldn't ever go to an unfunded master's. There's no reason to do so, since there are plenty of funded options out there. Also, Brandeis offers funding sometimes, but only partial funding, and it's in a high COL part of the country, so keep that in mind. I'm not sure what you mean by UWM "losing influence." It's one of the top MA's, with good funding and placement that tops Western Michigan and GSU among others (though Western and GSU are great programs too!). here's a list of MA's the OP might want to consider (though they're primarily analytic which may or may not suit OP's interests): https://www.philosophicalgourmet.com/m-a-programs-in-philosophy/

Yes, both UWM and U of H fully fund you, although keep in mind that MA stipends are pretty low--lower than PhD stipends--and may not be sufficient to pay for everything you need.

Pretty much my feeling as well, haha.

Welcome back, fellow MA applicant! I remember you from the 2016 season.

You can try to transfer out of a PhD program. It's not unheard of. However, I don't think that it's very likely that you'll be able to get into a better program. From what I've heard, people who do this usually end up moving laterally, not up, and there's usually some reason other than trying to move up in the rankings (issues of fit or culture with the program, etc.). Continental-friendly programs like Chicago, etc., have a different methodological approach than most SPEP programs, so I'm not sure that having an SPEP continental background will help you, particularly if you're not planning on doing work in those areas. It seems to me you'd just be saying, "hey I have an SPEP continental background, but I don't want to work on continental stuff anymore." My two cents' worth of advice: if you want to do analytic work but have little background, then apply to some of the top MA's. You'll set yourself up better for doing PhD work.

Welcome back! What's your AOI?

It's hard to say exactly; the most important components are the strength of your writing sample, your letters, and your grades/GRE scores. Your grades are fine, and your letters sound like they're coming from philosophers who know your work. That's good. Things like volunteer activities or conferences don't matter. If you can take the GRE, you'll be able to apply more widely, which is usually a good idea. Are you interested in continental philosophy? Some of the PhD programs you mention are more continental (Oregon, Penn State), but the MA programs you're looking at are primarily analytic.

I get it. Wanting some stability and a future you can count on can be a really important thing. And I realize that I'm a couple of years behind you in terms of how close you are to finishing the degree, and so on. But if you think you can finish the degree in a reasonable amount of time, you're not too financially stressed, and you're still enjoying the work you do, then why not see it through? You could be in a job you don't much care for right now anyway, and have to leave after a couple of years to make a career change. Maybe it's better to think of a PhD program like a job with a five-ish year contract (that you can of course leave early), that pays poorly, but is (hopefully mostly) rewarding to you in terms of the fulfillment you get from the work itself. Again, I'm not in your particular situation right now. But I turned down a ranked PhD program last year and totally realize that I may end up at an unranked program this year (applying out of my MA). While this freaks me out on one level, part of me cares more about doing the kind of work I want to do than about ranking anyway. As you said, even the UMichigan grads are suffering. We're all in the same boat. If you're enjoying the work you're doing, feel like you're getting the kind of mentorship you want from faculty, and that you're getting a good philosophical education, these are more important than the rank of the program. We're all f*cked anyway with respect to employment. Not having enough funding, though, is a different story...

I made the decision to do this after doing other jobs for a number of years that were less than satisfying for me. I have a hard time really putting time and effort into a job that I don't really think is important. I did the jobs I had well, even when I didn't like them of course, but I realized that I probably wouldn't be able to compel myself to build a good career doing something I don't believe in. Many (or most) people don't have this aversion, I think. I reached a point where I realized I would just keep drifting through life, doing work I didn't really want to do, and not sticking with my work because it didn't mean anything to me, and that if I did so, I'd regret not doing what I wanted to do. I decided that I had nothing to lose by continuing to study philosophy, and that even if I didn't get a TT job after, at least I tried my best to do the thing that I thought was really actually important and meaningful for me to do, and that I believe in. So ultimately, I'll do everything I can to get a job, and if it doesn't work out, then I'll move on and program computers or I'll try to go work in government or--hell, I'll wait tables again or something--but at least I'll know that first I did the thing that I believe in, and tried my best to make it work.

What exactly are you getting at by "altruism?" Are you referring to effective altruism which is currently trendy among tech people, or altruism as a component of utilitarianism more generally? Or are you talking about altruism in a moral-psychology way? It seems like you might have quite a few options since you might be able to work with normative ethics people or moral psychology people, depending on how you want to approach things. Have you looked at the Gourmet Report sub-rankings for ethics? It would probably be a good place to start. Also you could take a look at the SEP article on altruism, and see where people are working who are cited in the article. You can also just go through every program in the rankings and see who's a good fit. I know it's laborious, but that's what I did when trying to find people to work with in my subfield. I took a lot of notes when I did this. I (like you) started doing this in the first year of my MA, and it was totally worth it.

It's not clear that the GRE has much or any predictive power for graduate school performance. And taking it is tedious and expensive. However, specific grad programs (like philosophy depts) are generally beholden to the demands of graduate schools more generally. GRE scores are used to compare students across disciplines for funding allocation, fellowship eligibility, etc. I agree, the GRE sucks. However, even if phil depts want to eliminate the GRE, they'll more than likely be compelled to continue to consider the scores by the graduate school, so I doubt things are going to change anytime soon.

I've been thinking lately about what it takes to be successful coming from an MA, since I'm wrapping up my own this year. I have a few thoughts: 1. I think your choice of advisor matters significantly--way more than the rank status of your program. If you end up working with someone who doesn't really take the time to mentor you, you're not going to be able to produce as polished and nuanced a writing sample. One might also think that someone who isn't invested in your success might not take the time to write you as strong a letter. I'm lucky; my advisor is great. Not everyone fares so well, though. Take your time to evaluate the faculty before you pick someone to work with, and choose with your eyes open. 2. It can be tricky to do this in an MA, but I think it can be useful to try to get letters from faculty with whom you've done more than taken one class. Maybe you were also a TA for the faculty member, etc. Again--can be tricky to pull off in an MA, but if you can do it, it gives you a better chance to get to know each faculty member a bit more, and (hopefully) they'll write you a more informed letter as a result. 3. Don't be afraid to consult with your advisor (as long as you know she or he is in your corner) about your choice of letter writers. She or he may have better insight than you about who may be a good choice if you're trying to pick between several options. 4. Start your writing sample early (summer after first year at the latest, though it's not a bad idea to be thinking about what you might want to be working on before then). 5. Perhaps this goes without saying, but I've found that doing an MA first brings with it an extra burden; when you apply to programs the first time, many people apply to MAs as a backup. But when you're applying out of an MA, there's no MA as a backup. You may feel increased pressure on yourself. I think it's extra important as a result of that pressure to manage that stress well. So do something other than philosophy while you're doing your MA to keep yourself sane!

How unranked are we talking? What's placement like for your program? Are you applying to US PhD programs when you apply out? All-continental SPEP schools, or analytic?

Here are my thoughts on your situation: 1. I applied after a gap of about two years. I had, from what I can gauge, only one strong letter from a philosopher. Another letter was also from a philosopher, but I know it was really short and uninformative. The third letter I'm certain was glowing, but was from an English professor, not a philosopher. I got into some programs. My point is, if you can get at least one strong letter, the other two might not matter so much, at least for MA programs. Even a brief letter from a philosopher who taught you five years ago would be better than a letter from a non-academic. Some further advice: it can be nice to stop by and ask professors in person for letters if you're nearby. That can help to jog memories, especially since it has been five years. Have you saved any of your old work for those other courses? If so, show it to your potential letter-writers. That will also help them remember you and your work. 2. Are you planning on applying to all-continental schools (ie the SPEP institutions)? If you're wanting to study Deleuze, I'm supposing so. My sense is that it's not just the subject matter that differs at these sorts of programs, but also the methodology. So yeah, I'd imagine that a paper with an analytic approach might signal that you're not a great fit. Your options seem to be: a) adapting a paper you've already written, and explain in your SOP that your interests are evolving, or b) write a new project. Option a) might be better if you were applying to pluralistic programs; then they could assess your sample, and understand from your SOP that you might want to work with their continental scholars rather than their analytic people. As for option b), could you work on a new slightly more continental-friendly project? I know it's August, but there's still some time. Do you have anyone who could give you feedback? Your current letter-writers? Friends who are in grad school now? It might be tricky if they're all analytic scholars, though. The other option is of course to take a few upper-division or grad courses as a non-degree student somewhere, get some letters from people who know your recent work, and generate material for a sample that fits with your current interests.

I didn't mean to suggest that my point applies with any specificity to your low-GPA situation, just that if a TT research job is necessary for one's happiness and fulfillment after obtaining one's PhD in philosophy, then it might be time to rethink one's goals, because it's so unlikely that one will end up with a TT research job, even if one goes to a top program. My advice is just to consider if you'd be happy with a teaching job, possibly non-TT, or non-academic employment after the PhD. So it sounds as though your last two years were the ones in which you did badly. So you might be able to have your letter-writers explain why your first two years and your recent coursework at UCLA are more representative of your abilities (because of extenuating circumstances X, Y, Z). I looked at the graduate school at my own institution (I'm at one of the Leiter-ranked MAs), out of curiosity, and the requirement is a 2.75. There's also the option to do extra coursework to prove yourself if you're under the threshold. I suspect that institutions will vary, so you'll have to check each and, if you're under the required GPA, see if you can use your extra coursework to have that requirement waived. I'd imagine that for PhD institutions, if you're applying with an MA, the minimum-GPA requirement would apply just to your MA, not to your undergrad. You might want to make sure of that however, with particular graduate schools. I mean that there are a range of more-and-less prestigious MA programs, even if you're just looking at Leiter's list of the top MAs. He ranks them according to a few tiers. So yeah, you should apply to Georgia State, UWM, NIU, etc (if they fit your interests), but also to Houston, Ohio U, Texas Tech, etc. Houston, TTU, et al are good programs too, with good placement, but they may also be less competitive than say, NIU or GSU, especially for funding. In your situation, I'd apply to as many of the good MA programs as you can.

A few thoughts and questions: 1. It's not exactly related to your question, but it's not really realistic to aim for a research job in philosophy, unfortunately, even if you're going to a top program. Jobs like that are incredibly hard to come by these days. For example, I went to a program ranked in the PGR top-5, where I did my undergrad, and I was friends with a number of the graduate students. Of the 4 I know pretty well who graduated in the past few years, one is at a post-doc, one left academia, one has a teaching position at a SLAC, and one has a research job at a low-ranked PGR program. Again, this is at a top-5 program. Check out placements for top programs; most people are getting teaching jobs if they're getting TT jobs at all. Teaching jobs--definitely hard to get, but definitely possible. Research jobs--very, very difficult to obtain. 2. Is the 2.8 an overall GPA, or just a major GPA? What was your major? It's going to look worse if your low GPA is in philosophy courses than if it's in, say, the mathematical sciences. Were the courses in which you did poorly all during a certain part of your education? E.g., were they all during one or two terms in the middle, due to extenuating circumstances? Or, e.g., did you start out doing very poorly, but end strong? These kinds of situations are easier to explain than if you consistently did badly throughout your undergrad. 3. You have the right idea by taking some classes to show that you can do good work. However, what sort of phil classes are these? Are they upper-level courses? 4. It's generally a good idea to get your letter-writers to do the explaining for you when you apply if you have some kind of mark on your record. Perhaps the biggest obstacle to getting into a program, though, even if you have strong letters, a great sample, and have proven your ability to succeed in upper-level philosophy courses at UCLA is that many graduate schools will have a minimum-GPA requirement that all applicants will have to meet. Even if the phil department is willing to take you, they may not be able to based on the admissions requirement from the graduate school. I'd look into this more if I were in your shoes. You may be under those thresholds. I'm not sure if there's a way around that or not. 5. There are stories of people who have GPAs in the low 3's (i.e. 3.1, 3.2, etc) getting into an MA, and then doing well. In this thread from a few years ago, one person had approximately 3.1 in undergrad, went to an MA, got something like a 3.9, then got into Arizona: https://forum.thegradcafe.com/topic/52008-anyone-here-have-a-low-gpa-success-story/?tab=comments#comment-1058094403 edit: this same person (the Arizona student) claims in another thread to have had a 2.9ish GPA...which is a bit closer to you: https://forum.thegradcafe.com/topic/56117-chances-with-a-291-gpa/?tab=comments#comment-1058153078 Your GPA is a little lower than that, but you've also done some additional coursework and done well. If you're set on trying, I'd say do more advanced coursework at UCLA, have the best letters possible, a great writing sample, excellent GREs, and apply to a range of MA programs. I'd also strongly recommend having a backup plan, because what you're thinking of attempting seems to me a long shot, in my honest opinion.