Xia1

I've been researching/gathering data from this forum and elsewhere on what exactly makes for a successful writing sample, since most agree that if there is a single most important part of the application, it is the writing sample. I'd like to give my thoughts and see what others think, especially from people who have been through the process, and especially especially from those who have had success. They are in no particular order and are far from exhaustive.
First observation, it seems to me many of the "successful samples" interact in some way with a unique, modern philosophical issue. Many of the less successful examples do not have this quality. That isn't to say that one can't write on Hume or Aristotle and be successful (quite the contrary), but it seems that those who do also relate their work to something with contemporary relevance.
Secondly, successful samples are by and large decidedly analytic. Many unsuccessful samples are musing, setting up vague (but maybe still plausible) premises and meandering their way through different possibilities to a conclusion. None of it is exactly clearly the case. That is to say, its hard to make any pronouncements one way or another about the validity of the arguments within, since they are perhaps plausibly true but not clearly true. Sorry continental friends, but to be fair, I am not continental myself and am not looking at many samples from schools with continental specialties. Though I don't think this is simply related to the analytic-continental distinction; many papers, even from the "analytic tradition," suffer from vague ruminations about esoteric topics.
Thirdly, and related to the last point, successful samples are by and large negative. That is to say, they argue against rather than for. I think this is simply due to how much easier it is to prove something is false than prove it is true.
Lastly, and this is definitely subjective, but successful samples are interesting. And by interesting, I do not mean novel, unorthodox, or about popular topics. I mean they grip the reader by making them invested in the arguments success, which presupposes that the reader thinks the argument even can be successful (or that there is an argument at all, don't take this for granted).
So I suppose my main take away is that common denominators of successful papers are that they clearly set out realistic goals, are hyper focused, and make arguments that can easily be shown to be objectively (not empirically, obviously) true or false given their validity.
If true, it seems helpful, because it gives us good advice that, without the preceding background information, is not immediately obvious. For example, it seems one would be more likely to succeed with a paper (and don't read too much into these examples, I certainly haven't put enough thought into them to be worth it) critiquing reductionism with Kripke than a paper trying to synthesize Aristotle's and Leibniz's ideas about a First Cause. The main exception to this would be departmental fit/specialty, but I'm simply trying to be as general as possible.
Thoughts?

Your stats are such that they won't keep you out of anywhere. That, of course, is not a guarantee of anything. It'll come down to writing sample, SOP, fit, and what the admissions committee had for breakfast on the day they review your file. Polish as much as you can but don't lose too much sleep over it. It will be out of your hands very soon.

I'm just doing an MA right now, but it certainly helps me to just affirm--every day--that there is no guarantee of employment post education, and being OK with that. I've simply given up on the idea that I am 100% in control of the results of my education and job search. That's life. And frankly, I think that outlook is healthier than the alternative. First, it's more in line with reality; and second, it takes a lot of the pressure off in a way. It's a gamble we have to take in pursuing a job in higher ed. And so, 
Besides the TT job, your other worries are bunk. Philosophers, for all their faults, are smart (as a general trend). You were talented enough to gain admission to a doctoral program in philosophy, you are more than capable of providing for your family and all those other things. I was in the corporate world for a minute, and the need for people who can think is dire. Most successful higher-ups are very aware of this, and you can easily become qualified for work that pays well and gives you security. You will be talented enough to work your way up, and you have the work ethic to do so. There is much greater demand for intelligent people than what is confined to academic philosophy.
So what's the worst case scenario? You've lost 6-8 years in opportunity cost. That's a lot. But you're now Dr. Duns Eith. Most people your age are likely still in middling corporate positions. They've likely spent the majority of their free time at work, and probably indifferent about what they do. So they've made a little more money than you would have. So what? Time isn't what makes all the difference. I can't promise you'll love what you do after philosophy, but there's no guarantee you'll love whatever you'd do in philosophy. And plus, you'll almost certainly make more money. The TT phil professors at my top 3 MA program make about $60k. What I'm trying to say basically is, academic philosophy isn't everything. Even if the absolute worst case scenario comes true for you, life goes on. And it can be great, and in many ways, better.
So how is this a good decision? You get to do what you love for 6-8 years, with more free time than the average working American, and have at least some funding to do so. Maybe a few doors are closed, but more are certainly open. Seems like a great decision to me, but to each their own.

I'm just doing an MA right now, but it certainly helps me to just affirm--every day--that there is no guarantee of employment post education, and being OK with that. I've simply given up on the idea that I am 100% in control of the results of my education and job search. That's life. And frankly, I think that outlook is healthier than the alternative. First, it's more in line with reality; and second, it takes a lot of the pressure off in a way. It's a gamble we have to take in pursuing a job in higher ed. And so, 
Besides the TT job, your other worries are bunk. Philosophers, for all their faults, are smart (as a general trend). You were talented enough to gain admission to a doctoral program in philosophy, you are more than capable of providing for your family and all those other things. I was in the corporate world for a minute, and the need for people who can think is dire. Most successful higher-ups are very aware of this, and you can easily become qualified for work that pays well and gives you security. You will be talented enough to work your way up, and you have the work ethic to do so. There is much greater demand for intelligent people than what is confined to academic philosophy.
So what's the worst case scenario? You've lost 6-8 years in opportunity cost. That's a lot. But you're now Dr. Duns Eith. Most people your age are likely still in middling corporate positions. They've likely spent the majority of their free time at work, and probably indifferent about what they do. So they've made a little more money than you would have. So what? Time isn't what makes all the difference. I can't promise you'll love what you do after philosophy, but there's no guarantee you'll love whatever you'd do in philosophy. And plus, you'll almost certainly make more money. The TT phil professors at my top 3 MA program make about $60k. What I'm trying to say basically is, academic philosophy isn't everything. Even if the absolute worst case scenario comes true for you, life goes on. And it can be great, and in many ways, better.
So how is this a good decision? You get to do what you love for 6-8 years, with more free time than the average working American, and have at least some funding to do so. Maybe a few doors are closed, but more are certainly open. Seems like a great decision to me, but to each their own.

P.S. have you considered applying straight into a PhD program? I highly recommend it. It can save you time and energy and money.

Sounds like you are an above-average applicant.  
I think you're over-worried about your prospects as an applicant. (though perhaps under-worried about your prospects in a career in philosophy, simply indicated by the fact that you are applying to grad school. haha)
I am obliged to mention, though: never accept an unfunded offer for an MA, even if the program says it is possible to get funding in the 2nd year. Just gotta get that out.

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.
 

I hope that isn't getting you too down. The fact you got on their waitlist is freaking insane, and I'm sure you'll have great success next cycle.

I'll be attending UVA in the fall!

I received an email from Walter Ott just now saying it was likely I would receive an offer this afternoon. Thank. You. So. Much. @Xia1.

Took myself off the waitlist for UVA. I believe I was pretty high on it as well, so hopefully that helps someone!

Took myself off the waitlist for UVA. I believe I was pretty high on it as well, so hopefully that helps someone!

I've been told that I'm still under consideration at UNC! I emailed/called to solicit. Fingers crossed...I'm praying this works out at the eleventh hour as UNC was one of my top choice schools and it would be a miracle...

I've been admitted off the waitlist at Indiana! I'm very happy about this offer and will likely accept, but I'm still waiting to hear back about a fellowship at Brandeis and a couple of waitlists that might change my mind.

I took myself off the waitlist for UWM and declined GSU. There's a good chance I will decline Syracuse and take myself off of OSU's waitlist before the 15th as well.

I just accepted Yale’s offer. That’s it for me. Good luck to everyone who is still deciding! 

(I'm pretty sure all this information can be found somewhere in the forum, but I guess a summary could be helpful.)
I've accepted NYU's offer.
I've declined offers from Ohio State, Northwestern, Michigan, UCLA, Toronto, Yale, Pittsburgh, Harvard, Princeton, Oxford (BPhil), USC, Rutgers, U-Conn and UT-Austin. I've taken myself off the following waitlists: MIT, Columbia, CUNY and UNC.

I can share mine (phil of language). Just PM me.

Yes, indeed

A full-tweed toga is what I hear is in fashion.

Let's be honest: you got admitted to a grad school in philosophy -- be worried! Your attempts for securing a poor paying adjunct job or getting lottery ticket (tenure) are becoming a reality.
Gimme heart reacts if you don't mind staring into the void.

For the record, I'm very much leaning toward declining my GSU offer, but I have to hear about funding from another program, which may not happen until right upon the week of April 15th. 

Got into Tufts!

One big frustration I've had with the application process is the flakiness of my advisers and letter writers. They expressed a great deal of enthusiasm in helping me apply to graduate school when I initially asked, but then dragged their feet in actually giving me real feedback on my writing sample, to the point that I largely revised it alone. I don't know if this is a common experience, a function of my shyness and lack of assertiveness (and concomitant less close relationships with my professors), or a sign that they didn't really believe in me. Other people I knew had professors who were much more involved. Another applicant I know went through four or five drafts of their writing sample with multiple professors. I only managed to get feedback on my initial draft from a single professor after much prodding. I suspect this harmed me a great deal.

I'm in a similar boat, I have on offer from a ranked program and waitlist at top 25. I personally think it's worth the opportunity cost. An MA never hurt anyone, a PhD you aren't happy with, that's another story. Sure, you may apply after the MA and strike out, but you can always apply again, and an MA will let you teach a few courses at least. You stand to gain more than you do to lose from the MA in my opinion, but if you feel you fit better at Memphis, that's a harder decision...
Best of luck! Maybe we'll run into each other at GSU, though if I have my choice I'll end up at NIU if I do an MA