quineonthevine

Waitlisted at Notre Dame, but on the second waitlist from which, "in all probability, no one will be accepted." Also haven't heard from CUNY and Georgetown, where acceptances and rejections went out, so I might be waitlisted at both. I'm not sure, I'm in limbo right now. Apparently some of the people who were accepted at Georgetown were waitlisted for funding, however, so even if I were waitlisted, it's bittersweet.

Also waitlisted at UVA!

assuming I was rejected from berkeley, duke, JHU, and wisconsin. the latter three aren't the best fits, so we'll see about future decisions...

This is pedantic and unnecessary. I said what I said, and I wasn't "trying" to say anything else. If 300 applicants apply for 5 slots at a single school, that's about a 2% chance of getting into a given PhD program -- but OP is applying to 20. Of course, that percentage doesn't factor in applicants who have bad grades, or an underdeveloped sample, or not the best letters. Since OP is a strong candidate, I think they have a very good chance of getting in somewhere. This is merely one opinion among many in this thread. But my original comment did not imply that OP will certainly get in somewhere, so I don't see what point there is in beating a dead horse. It's common knowledge that PhD admissions in our field is very difficult, and nobody can be certain they will get in. That doesn't mean OP should feel demoralized, especially since they are clearly a strong applicant.

I'll clarify -- yes, we know that admissions are an incredibly difficult process, but OP has basically just as good of a shot as any of us at getting into a program. Their GPA is competitive and so is their writing sample. I'm giving OP positive feedback because others on this thread are being very negative about their chances, which really isn't helpful IMO, especially because it discounts that OP *does* have a strong background. I fail to see how pointing that out gives OP a "false hope". But I agree that we should all not put our eggs in one basket, and expect the worst, since PhD admissions are notoriously difficult in our field. (This is common knowledge, though.)

I think you have very good chances. You have very good grades from a well-regarded MA program, and your writing sample is on a well-known contemporary philosopher, so plenty of professors at each school will be in a good place to evaluate it. (That's better than a relatively obscure sample topic, imo.) It is very difficult to get in anywhere, of course, but I'm confident you'll end up somewhere you're excited about. Good luck!

Also accepted at OSU via the portal!

This is a group for everyone applying to graduate school in philosophy this cycle, to matriculate in fall 2020. There is also a Facebook group with the same name as this thread, where people can discuss everything about this whole process. Good luck everyone! ☺️

I agree with the suggestion that you should contact philosophers working in ancient/Hellenistic phil. I think it's also worth contacting the faculty members of Classics departments near you, as there are many ancient philosophers working in Classics departments.

I'd be surprised if UCLA accepted fewer people than usual this year, as the department recently received a gift of $20 million.

One of my professors submitted two writing samples because she was interested in two very different subjects. (I think one interest was in contemporary analytic philosophy and the other was a historical paper in ancient or modern philosophy.) The benefit of doing that is you can show admission committees you're competent in two very different sub-fields of philosophy. She was admitted to top programs, although I think she applied before the recession, so maybe the situation is different now. But she served on admission committees at my university and elsewhere, and she didn't think it was a bad idea to submit more than one paper (unless both of them are extremely long or something).

I get the sense that many academic philosophers are well-meaning, but there are many reasons (many of them institutional) that can make philosophy an inaccessible and/or hostile environment for people of color and women. One reason has to do with demographics: something like 75% of practicing academic philosophers are white men, and 10% or so are white women. That lack of representation among faculty often dissuades people of color and women from participating in academic philosophy. Another reason is lack of diversity in what is taught at major universities (both with respect to content, such as restricting material to major topics in analytic philosophy, as well as the philosophers discussed in classes, who by and large tend to be white men). Moreover, academic philosophers tend to continue teaching throughout most of their lives. So there are many prominent philosophers who are just from a different time period, and tend to be less cognizant of the need to be inclusive than the younger generation. Also, I think the rigor of academic philosophy allows for an environment where it is permissible to be dismissive of unorthodox views/dissenting voices. This is something that's sure to vary from place to place, but I think this a problem in the culture of academic philosophy. I've seen undergraduates talking over other voices in the classroom, especially undergraduates who are women and people of color. I've seen undergraduates talk over graduate students, or even professors, who are women or people of color. I've also heard of philosophers from diverse backgrounds getting hate mail because they are minorities (even explicitly). It's hard not to notice these things, and it's very clear what impact it has on people from these groups, even if actions like these are unintentional. And I know plenty people of color and women in philosophy (from various departments) who have felt unwelcome in academic philosophy for various reasons. Those are some reasons why I don't think it's plausible to say that philosophy is very inclusive as things stand. For if it were, we should be seeing much more participation from people of color and women. Organizations like MAP are fighting the good fight, but there's a lot of work to be done to make philosophy more inclusive. With all of that said, I don't get the sense that philosophy is generally vicious in the way OP was asking about. I just think it can be vicious in different respects. I hope this clarifies what I meant @Rose-Colored Beetle & @loffire.

I haven't heard of graduate schools being like that, but I do know that graduate school in philosophy is often a hostile environment for people of color and women, although it depends on the program. In that sense it can be a vicious environment.

UPenn's department recently dropped the GRE requirement from admissions.

As far as I know, your community college GPA does count as part of the GPA that adcoms consider. Of course they care more about your upper-division coursework, but that substantially brings up your overall GPA.