Prose

I'd generally agree with this and re-emphasize (1) honesty with yourself and (2) the writing sample: 
Unless you're from a top undergrad, 4.0s won't matter. Unless you've published in respectable professional journals, publications won't matter. Languages won't count for much of anything unless you're working in a specific area of the history of philosophy where a certain language is crucial, and experiences like Fulbright also similarly really don't matter. The only things people really care about are your writing sample and whether or not you went to elite institutions. This latter point is especially important as the guy who got a 3.9 from Rutgers will almost always be looked upon more favorably than someone who had a 4.0 from an unknown school. The former's grades will carry more weight as they were from classes taught by famous philosophers, and he'll also have letters with similar prestige. Depending on the competition at the programs to which you're applying (yes they're all competitive; no they're not all as competitive as the others), you need to ask yourself, "Am I really, on the basis of my sample and pedigree, one of the top 3-4 epistemologists/ethicists/etc. applying this cycle?" It requires a lot of brutal honesty and shunning pointless compliments like how strong your application supposedly is - I've been through this myself. Don't believe me on pedigree? Take a look at the undergraduate BAs of the graduate students at top programs.
That is all to re-emphasize, again, the writing sample. Your pedigree is set in stone by the time you complete your BA/MA, or near the time of completion - your writing sample is not. It's the only thing you have full control over, and, luckily the most important component of your application. It can trump both lackluster pedigree and even grades. 

HEREWITH I PRESENT MY WISDOM
 
Sizzling Tier of the Making-or-Breaking-of-Application-Glory-or-Doom: Writing Sample / Letters of Recommendation (quality + fame) 
Hot Tier of Great Importance: GPA (in philosophy) / Higher Education Pedigree (in philosophy; can be very convincingly argued that this belongs to the Sizzling Tier)
Lukewarm Tier of Afterthought: GRE / Statement of Purpose [both of these, if significantly awful, will wreck your chances; if very good, will not go very far towards securing anything on their own]
 

This was an excellent explication, 10/10.

This was an excellent explication, 10/10.

This was an excellent explication, 10/10.

I'd generally agree with this and re-emphasize (1) honesty with yourself and (2) the writing sample: 
Unless you're from a top undergrad, 4.0s won't matter. Unless you've published in respectable professional journals, publications won't matter. Languages won't count for much of anything unless you're working in a specific area of the history of philosophy where a certain language is crucial, and experiences like Fulbright also similarly really don't matter. The only things people really care about are your writing sample and whether or not you went to elite institutions. This latter point is especially important as the guy who got a 3.9 from Rutgers will almost always be looked upon more favorably than someone who had a 4.0 from an unknown school. The former's grades will carry more weight as they were from classes taught by famous philosophers, and he'll also have letters with similar prestige. Depending on the competition at the programs to which you're applying (yes they're all competitive; no they're not all as competitive as the others), you need to ask yourself, "Am I really, on the basis of my sample and pedigree, one of the top 3-4 epistemologists/ethicists/etc. applying this cycle?" It requires a lot of brutal honesty and shunning pointless compliments like how strong your application supposedly is - I've been through this myself. Don't believe me on pedigree? Take a look at the undergraduate BAs of the graduate students at top programs.
That is all to re-emphasize, again, the writing sample. Your pedigree is set in stone by the time you complete your BA/MA, or near the time of completion - your writing sample is not. It's the only thing you have full control over, and, luckily the most important component of your application. It can trump both lackluster pedigree and even grades. 

This was an excellent explication, 10/10.

CEU is fine. If it's your only option and the money situation is good for you, go.

This was an excellent explication, 10/10.

CEU is fine. If it's your only option and the money situation is good for you, go.

This was an excellent explication, 10/10.

just declined

Tufts is your clear best choice, by far.

Tufts is your clear best choice, by far.

Tufts is your clear best choice, by far.

only 10 hours of productive reading a week? what? If that works for you then great but that's not and should not be the norm.
also I'm not sure what the last two bits are about at all - I'll try working less than 70 hours a week and see if I feel closer to writing the next Tractatus? Philosophy is hard work, whether you're Kant or an assistant professor, and the image of some manic, genius mind sketching up groundbreaking work is poor fantasy (this is probably even more true now in contemporary, professionalized philosophy - which everyone here wants to do - than ever). 

only 10 hours of productive reading a week? what? If that works for you then great but that's not and should not be the norm.
also I'm not sure what the last two bits are about at all - I'll try working less than 70 hours a week and see if I feel closer to writing the next Tractatus? Philosophy is hard work, whether you're Kant or an assistant professor, and the image of some manic, genius mind sketching up groundbreaking work is poor fantasy (this is probably even more true now in contemporary, professionalized philosophy - which everyone here wants to do - than ever). 

A "top 5" Leiter MA program? I didn't realize there was an ordinal ranking of MA programs. 

This is why I have trust issues with you

No, that's either impossible or inefficacious. I mean was she even counting meal prep?  
But seriously, I've done 90-hour study weeks (with breaks, of course) when I was studying for the bar exam. I even experienced "car sickness" from reading all day. For me, that amount of study would be unsustainable, but for a few months, it was fine (and it was well worth it when I saw my name on the list of people who had passed).

I really wonder what kind of work/study people are talking about. I spend most waking hours thinking about philosophy, but I couldn’t really call that work. I’ve been out of the academy for a few years now, but even when I was studying for my degree, I doubt I could manage more than about 10 hours of productive reading each week, on top of a few lectures. It didn’t hurt my grades, or—it seems—my chances w.r.t. PhD admissions. Talking to my undergrad professors (at a top 10 Phil. Gourmet department) this seems to capture their experience as well.

If you’re spending 70 waking hours reading papers and engaging in directed academic study each week, I imagine you’ll produce beautifully polished academic work, and be up to the minute on all the latest fads... but will it really be interesting, creative philosophy? (—I mean, perhaps you can make that work, but I feel it would hinder more than help?)
Wittgenstein was mentioned as an example of a hard worker. As far as I can tell from biographies etc., that meant open-ended pondering of philosophical questions, reading detective fiction, and discussing philosophy with his friends and students. I can’t imagine that’s the kind of study under discussion here.

I really don't think it's very mystical - there's just a lot of misunderstanding that causes too much uncertainty than is warranted about what should be pretty uncontroversial things. Won't get into it, but this being my second cycle, my view has changed a lot to thinking that it's really not nearly as unpredictable as people think.

So, there seem to be two kinds of answers here. On the one hand, there are answers which put a high value on work/life balance, e.g., @hector549. On the other, there are those which do not put a high value on work/life balance, e.g., me, @Prose, and @The_Last_Thylacine. I think one ought to use whichever method works best for one. Still, as long as there are people in the latter camp (and there always will be), it seems that those in the former camp will be at a disadvantage. Maybe they'll have better lives in some sense, but it's unlikely they'll be as productive philosophically.* I mean, even super-genius philosophers like Wittgenstein, Quine, and Lewis (to name a few) were famously hard workers. 
* I should add that, for me, being maximally productive at the thing I've chosen to pursue (e.g., philosophy) is a good life. 

ditto @brookspn
also I just have certain goals I want to achieve that I can't achieve by putting in 30 hrs per week, just not possible - I also think there's people out there doing 70 hours doing stuff much harder than reading some stuff and writing some stuff, so I say work as much as you can handle
and as for how much time is REQUIRED to be 'good' at philosophy depends on you and 'good', but as said, that's not really what's under discussion here.

lmao