lyellgeo

Agree with this. Another thing to say is that, if you are worried about your GPA in quantitative classes, having a good math GRE (160+) can also help to alleviate some of those concerns in the initial round of cuts.

Apologies to responding to an old thread, but I just wanted to write my thoughts on it. The original idea was that you take acceptance rate and calculate the odds of a shutout (applying to 15 programs with 5% acceptance rate, odds—assuming independence—would be roughly 50/50 of a shutout.) That, combined with the fact that one's "numbers" may well be better than average, seems to make the chances of being shutout fairly low. I think that approach is methodologically flawed, though not for the reasons others were saying. There's nothing wrong in principle with trying to calculate the odds of getting shut out. What one should do, however, is calculate the odds of themselves being accepted at each individual program. In order to be accepted, one has to be accepted outright or off of the waitlist—in other words, you need to be one of the top 10 or 15 (depending on the program) students applying to that program, when factoring in for program fit and ability to do graduate study. (Obviously this will be highly dependent on yourself and the specific program.) This difference may seem small but I think it's important. On the one hand, someone with good all-around stats (say, in the top 20%) may have an extremely low chance of actually making it through the final cut. I'm not sure what this application would look like exactly, but you could have someone (call them A) who, for example, consistently makes it to the final round before not being admitted—even if A were consistently one of the top 20 or 30 applicants, they could still easily be shut out from all the programs they applied to. On the other hand, you could have someone (call them B ) who has relatively bad stats and who frequently gets tossed in the initial cut (say, half the time) but who, after surviving the initial cut, often makes it to the top 10 students under consideration. By contrast, B could still get accepted in at several programs that match their interests. I think this is a source for both optimism and pessimism. On the one hand, being a "good" applicant by the numbers basically guarantees nothing—even with exceptionally good stats, someone could easily get shutout if their application doesn't stand out further on in the process. On the other hand, someone with rather average stats could still have a good chance of getting accepted somewhere (even multiple places) if they think that they have a decent chance (assuming they can survive the initial cut) of standing out later in the process. Again, the question of whether someone can "stand out" in order to be seen as a top applicant really depends on a) the non-quantifiable aspects of that person's application (writing sample and personal statement) and b ) the specific program (its values, specializations, style of doing things, the extent to which it cares about undergraduate program prestige, and so on). So, not that that helps anyone wanting specific numbers, but I think that can help explain both why the application process can be so frustrating, with good applicants seemingly getting rejected from everywhere, as well as why there are still so many stories of someone who gets in "against the odds" at a top program.

Anyone have any strategies for dealing with the wait? Over the last week or so I feel like I've read way too many old threads on GradCafe (everything back through page 20 or so), the Who Got In threads from a few years back, and a bunch of old posts on Leiter's blog. Even worse, however, is the habit browsing random department websites (e.g. GSU) and reading the student policies and handbooks, random faculty bios, going over parts of my application (over and over again), and reading old essays from faculty. I guess the last one isn't too bad, but the rest don't seem like healthy strategies. If I can somehow avoid the grad websites for a while, I plan to i) try to do some skiing ii) find some things to read that aren't in my "AOS"—I want to read more of Irigaray's work, as well as some other texts I haven't gotten around to, like Bergson's Matter and Memory. I also want to have some time to work through Kant and Hume again, though at my own pace and in a more relaxed way.

This is just a guess, but I would think that of the three (undergrad, masters, and law school) your MA philosophy grades would be most important. Many people will be applying with a perfect GPA from their MA program (and many of those will be rejected). But the question of whether it would be prohibitive probably depends on the rest of your application.

Our applications seem like they should be similar in a lot of ways (at least in terms of numbers). I have a 3.6ish GPA (3.85 major), 167 V 164 Q 5.0 AW GRE, and also a summer abroad at Cambridge (one of the professors there wrote one of my letters). (My school isn't really known for its philosophy program, however, and it's a state school.) I'm mostly applying to continental-type programs, some more well known than others. From what I've read about department websites, I doubt anyone will throw out either of our applications based on a GPA cutoff, even at some of the more competitive schools. I would think that your other scores (like GRE), plus the international experience and so on, would be enough for them to look at your application seriously. But that's just my best guess, as I'm mostly in the same situation.

So, not entirely related to what other people have been discussing, but someone on this year's Facebook page mentioned that people in their MA programs are applying to 30 (?) PhD programs on average. I guess I have a couple of concerns about that (or at least why it might not be a great idea for most people to do that). First, if the trend to apply to more and more schools keeps increasing, then won't it just bog down admissions? I doubt most people can really find more than 10 schools that are a very close fit with their interests (unless these interests are super vague and not very well defined). (For me, as far as I can tell, it's more like 3 or 4 very close fits, with 6 to 7 other schools that are close enough to be reasonably worth applying to. ) Second, to the extent that the number of acceptable schools to apply to in order to be competitive keeps increasing (of course we might doubt whether applying to 30 rather than 20 schools actually significantly increases your chance of being accepted), isn't this just creating another income barrier to students who don't have thousands to spend on graduate applications? I guess I feel in some ways we're seeing a natural result of the extremely competitive aspect of PhD applications, so maybe we shouldn't surprised. Anyway, my own sense is that, even though the admissions process has random aspects to it, someone who gets rejected by 20 different schools will (most likely) get rejected even if they apply to an additional 10 schools (the 10 of which would be even further outside their interests than the other 20). Applying to that many programs, assuming you can get in, may increase your options, but I doubt it would have a significant effect. I mean, while I guess I feel like anyone who just applies to 5 programs is probably taking a risk (even if they have a great application), I also feel like you are going to get diminishing returns from applying to schools beyond the ten or so that seem to best fit your interests. (Maybe you could extend this to about 15 or so in some cases.) And even if you do get accepted at one of those extra programs, you might not feel great there because you don't fit in very well in terms of research and overall fit.

Nice! I don't know their department too well, but Beiser is awesome

FYI: Wrathall recently accepted a position at Oxford, so will no longer be at UCR.

Congrats! Are you going to accept either of them?

I think this is because the expectation is that you would apply to other phd programs at different schools.

While being impossible to know for sure, the main thing I would consider in terms of reapplying is the suitability of the writing sample. Unless your sample is at the level where you can publish it in a well-regarded journal, it can always be improved. Also, even a great writing sample may not be a good fit with the department's specific interests or approaches. Some questions to consider in terms of the writing sample: Is it clearly written, so that someone with a basic philosophy background could follow? It is structured with a clear argument that develops? Is the paper interesting? Is it important? Does the paper demonstrate ability to engage with difficult philosophical subjects at a high level of analysis (i.e. does it demonstrate that you are able to do the work of philosophy?) If a professor at the intended school happened to see your paper in a journal or other professional context, would they keep reading? Compared to the papers in peer-reviewed publications and journals on your topic, what does your paper lack? Is this paper publishable at a professional level? If not, what is holding it back? Does the paper establish something significant for the current (think last 10 years) scholarship on this topic? Does the paper establish something significant for philosophy at large? Is the paper focused on a specific issue? Does the paper explain its terms as far as is necessary? Does the paper demonstrate familiarity with relevant philosophical history? Does the paper resemble current work being done at the intended school, both in terms of method and subject? Does the paper demonstrate a high level of competence with current scholarship and relevant secondary literature? Can the paper easily be identified as philosophy, rather than, for example, literary criticism, history, textual exegesis, or applied theory? Does the length and structure of the paper closely match the scope of its thesis? Does the paper demonstrate the ability for professional scholarship? ... Some of the questions are a bit silly, and very few papers will meet all of those standards (those that do will do so in different ways), but this is (as far as I can tell, and based on my limited experience) the kind of standard you should be shooting for.

Ok, this is good to know, as Protevi would be the main reason for applying there.

This is helpful, as I basically have no sense at all of Canadian school rankings (or, more importantly, quality). Are there any Canadian MA programs that you would recommend looking at, besides McMaster and McGill? Yeah, thank you for the advice. The idea is that I can start broad and then narrow down the list to somewhere between 12-18 programs (including MAs). Already, for example, based on more investigation, a few schools even at the top will likely be taken off due to lack of fit, including, for example, UCR, Columbia, and Georgetown. And I've also removed Kingston and Warwick for now, just because of lack of funding. In terms of the question "if you were rejected form all schools but that one, would you go there?", the answer is 'yes' to nearly all of them—I don't have any specific career plans after graduating, and I would be happy to attend a (funded) grad program even if it was a "waste" or never turned into a career. That said, given the choice between a funded or inexpensive (e.g. Leuven) high quality MA and a lower-end/unranked PhD, I think I would prefer the MA. The other factor to consider is fit, which is pretty difficult to determine. In terms of topics or 'continental' focus, for example, Oregon is a good "fit," though when I look at their grad courses online, most of the subjects (or rather, the way in which the subjects are discussed) don't seem to fit what I am interested in (not to take anything away from that program). On the other hand, a place like UCR seems to fit the way I like philosophy to be done, but doesn't have as great of a fit in the sense that no one there is especially interested in French philosophy. Overall, aside from a few programs that fit both (e.g. Chicago), the best option so far seems to be Canadian or European MA programs, which would likely open up more options and give me a stronger basis to work from.

This looks really great. I think I would definitely be interested in applying, but it states the following about admissions: Academic prerequisitesNormally, students will be expected to hold a BA in Philosophy and to have completed the first year of a MA program (60 ECTS). Students who do not have a major in Philosophy or have validated less than 60 ECTS in a MA program may be accepted on the condition that they take a certain number of supplementary courses (in French) in our BA and MA programs. I don't have a year in a MA program, yet, and I wouldn't be fluent in French enough to take supplementary courses. I may email them to see if this is a hard requirement, though, and it could also be possible to apply after a year at another MA program (such as Leuven).

There is definitely some overlap, so this is good advice, thanks.

Thanks, this is super helpful information!

True, but I'm not fluent in French and am not sure what English-speaking options there would be. Also I'm not sure if there would be funding. Any suggestions on where to look or how to find options?

Thanks! I will definitely add this to the list.

I haven't considered these, I will look into this. Yeah, the categories are primarily based on trying to decipher placement info, and "safe" schools should only be understood as 'slight safer' than the schools at the very top. But it is good to know that they only have 2 funded spots. I have secondary interests in Heidegger, Hegel, and Schelling on the German side of things, but I'm more (comparatively) familiar in the French side. So I will definitely keep that in mind, thanks.

Hi, so I will be applying this fall to programs. My main interest is in Deleuze though I have a fairly good analytic background as well. Any suggestions of schools I should include or take off? I would prefer that each school have at least one person with AOS in French philosophy, though if they are strong elsewhere or seem like they could be a good fit then it's not needed. My GPA is not amazing (3.6 cumulative, 3.9 major), but everything else should be strong enough. I'm trying to create a large enough range to avoid a complete shutout—at the same time it's hard to know whether some of the lower-end programs would really be worth it over a master's. Anyway, just checking if there's anyone with similar interests that may have some thoughts. This is the current (extremely tentative) list I'm working with: Reach University of Chicago Columbia Georgetown Villanova Stony Brook Midrange Penn State DePaul Stony Brook Boston College UC Riverside Safer Purdue Loyola University Chicago University of Oregon University of New Mexico Masters Toronto Brock Warwick Georgia State Kingston LSU Total: 20