quineonthevine

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

Hi future applicants! Time to repay all the advice I read online over the last year or so... 
I was admitted at MIT, Michigan, NYU, Rutgers, and some other places, waitlisted at Princeton, and rejected at Berkeley, Pitt HPS, and I assume Toronto. At least one of the schools that admitted me (NYU) mentioned my writing sample as the reason, and I think it's true that the sample is the most important part (though I'm sure I benefited from a somewhat well-known undergrad, etc.). So here are my two pieces of writing sample advice. I think they go somewhat against the prevailing advice on this thread so far.
Polishing and presenting is important, but not essential (my sample had typos, was in MS word, and worse, had math in MS word!). Feedback is great, but not the only way (I had a bit -- one prof read the first half). The best use of your time (I suspect) is preparing to write! That is, brainstorming, thinking, reading, and so on. I didn't plan it this way, but I spent about 9 months scratching my head over my topic: talking about it with my advisor, coming up with ideas, abandoning ideas (3 or 4 'grand theories' in the trash), writing class papers on adjacent problems, reading books on it, and so on. The result was that I had a good understanding of my problem, and some fairly cutting edge things to say about it. Then I wrote for a month and edited for a couple weeks. My point is that for your paper to stand out you need a comparatively deep understanding of your topic, and lots of feedback-revision cycles are not as effective a way of getting there as reading and thinking (especially if your profs aren't experts on your particular problem!).
Here's a second piece of advice which may be more controversial: if a "publishable paper" is consummately self-contained, thoroughly situates itself in the literature, and develops all its points without leaving gaps, then the ideal result is not a publishable paper. In particular, it might be better to do something slightly more ambitious (that to properly argue for could take 40-80 pages!) than something that meets all these criteria. This is what I did -- thought I was overshooting at first. I had enough stuff to say that I addressed very few counterarguments and had lots of explicit "this requires development that I won't give here" footnotes. By the end, I was fully in sketching mode: "I hope I have suggested how such an account can do X (even though fully showing that would take another 30, shh)." The theory is that (a) it's more compelling to demonstrate your philosophical creativity than your ability to flawlessly present an argument, (b) these two things are in tension because of the page limits, and so (c) you should err on the side of demonstrating creativity so long as the ideas are good and you don't come off as utterly undisciplined. My evidence for this theory, of course, is anecdotal at best... But if you find yourself 3 weeks before deadline thinking "oh no this should have been a 50 pager," don't despair. (This is more of an academic rhetoric problem, in that you have to write it so the reader doesn't think 'uhoh, big gap neglected there.' I don't mean try to pull one over on them! But address the omission and make it seem reasonable.)
So taken together, these come to: don't spend all your effort revising and tuning in hopes of getting the perfect journal-quality article. Instead, spend a lot of time trying to come to an understanding of your topic so that you have a lot of good ideas to write about. Otherwise, I second everything the very hungry caterpillar said above, especially taking time off after your BA. Best of luck and don't let it get you down!

So the old thread is a treasure trove of advice, but I think half a decade and mostly dead discussion calls for a new iteration of this thread. As March is now underway and people are getting a good idea of their cycle, I'd like to get your perspectives on what went right, what went wrong, and what has been helpful/unhelpful to you. If you could, please provide what your aspirations and/or expectations were going into the cycle and how you believed you performed relative to those goals. What advice would you pass on for someone going through this process at the end of the year? This can cover anything from the start of the process until now that you think might be helpful to the novice applicant. 
 
Also, big shout out to @MtnDuck for maintaining that behemoth of a spreadsheet this year. 

HI all,

I wanted to ask you a question regarding philosophical performance while waiting for admission results: do you feel that your capacity to work, or your concentration, diminishes or does it stays the same? I've been feeling that it is harder for me to concentrate and do assignments, etc. and I was wondering if it was normal or if I should see some mental health professional. 
Thank you all. 

I was also accepted to Rutgers yesterday! I was traveling and didn't have access to my phone, so I missed a call from the DGS. He sent me an email, which I didn't see until today, offering me admission and sharing the date of the official visit. Unfortunately, I don't have any more information as to whether or not there are more offers to be made. However,  I'll be sure to post here and let you know if I hear anything else. Sorry I can't be more help. Good luck!

accepted to rutgers

Just accepted to Columbia!

Actually rather enjoy things outside of traditionally analytic content, and lots of people will tell you the distinction isn't so stark as it used to be, though it's still there - I understand your chosen track gets lots of criticism, some rightful ones included, but don't be so wounded that you read animosity (wrongly) into things. 
Stating that continental philosophy makes bad job prospects even more bleak isn't an attack, and you're doing applicants a disservice if you don't admit that outright. You might also try addressing people directly, rather than referring to them in third person, when you think they've said something you disagree with.

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’m a non-traditional international student, applying to philosophy programs a year after my undergrad from a small LAC in the US. I’ve applied to 20 PHD prorgrams, mostly from PGR, and 2 MA programs. Two of my letter writers, however, think that I’ve applied to an unreasonable number of programs, “exceedingly high,” as they put it. My undergrad GPA isn’t very high but my major GPA is pretty good. I’m also confident I have good letters and that my writing sample is strong as well. My GRE scores are terrible though. Do you think I’m being unreasonable? or unrealistic with PhD admissions? 

accepted to Berkeley!!! 
(not the one who posted on results, that was @senyirauxa)
so far: no rejection from Brown, but no interview request from Chicago

You are always accepted to the University of my heart.

This reminded me of a bunch of research done on attrition of underrepresented philosophy students from intro classes to philo majors, and then from undergrad to grad. I think there's a bunch of annoyingly subtle stuff going on here. I've perceived being talked over by male classmates several times. However, whenever I also perceive myself talking over them, I tell my professors/instructors not to call on me/ask if I should maybe shut up a little. (I am *quite* obnoxious in the classroom.) Perhaps it's that self-consciousness that has been more ingrained in me, which is also a function of my minority status? There's also stuff like impostor syndrome, which has been said to hit underrepresented groups far more than the majority.

Thanks for the clarification, @quineonthevine. I'm not sure I agree with everything you say, so I may start a new thread entirely so as not to hijack this one. For the moment, I will certainly agree that when men dominate things, things tend to go wrong in particular ways, and I can't help but think that this has something to do with the current state of academic philosophy. With the affectionate humor of one who has a hearty degree of respect for men, I would have us consider the ease with which we can imagine seven or eight men in a circle smoking pipes or cigars, telling each other how profound they are.

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.

Nope. This is the subforum for it. Sacralicious is asking about a subfield of philosophy.
 
This is a move you need to make with your eyes wide open--way more wide open than for getting a PhD in philosophy in the first place. You absolutely need to know that the job prospects in aesthetics are just about the worst of any subfield of philosophy. Most years, there's one job in the AOS; often, there are none. Occasionally you get bumper crops of 3+, but that's rare. You have to expect one job a year, max. And you have to realize that it's a subfield that's widely (and unjustly) looked down upon. Things are better among continentalists, but still not good. So you have to plan your trajectory accordingly.
The result is that anybody working in aesthetics has to specialize in something else, too. And that's not a bad thing, since aesthetics gives you the opportunity to bring philosophical work from elsewhere into conversation with human culture, and that makes for really interesting stuff. But from the practical and research standpoints, you absolutely have to master some other aspect of the philosophical literature. Even then, that's not enough for the job market (you'll still get discounted as not the real deal).
On the plus side, there's much less legitimate competition for that one job a year. And the main aesthetics associations--the ASA and the BSA--are great, very friendly, and do a lot of work to promote aesthetics, and to help students (e.g. student travel to the conferences is funded, they fund lots of grants, they have editorial opportunities for students, and the ASA is going to start sponsoring a postdoc). These are relatively large organizations (especially the ASA), and so there are lots of conferences every year--4 for the ASA, 1 BSA, 1 CSA, and 1 ESA, plus a few other regular events. That all means that networking and getting conference experience is a lot easier in this subfield than in others.
 
With those warnings out of the way, I suppose it needs to be said that the state of graduate education in aesthetics in North America (if that's where you're looking) is not great. A lot of programs have people who claim aesthetics as an AOS, but most of those aren't affiliated with the ASA/BSA/CSA/ESA, and don't publish in the relevant journals (if they publish in aesthetics at all). So you have to be careful. You absolutely need a supervisor who is active in the subfield, because you can't afford not to have a vocal advocate. To my mind, the best ranked departments in North America for the study of aesthetics are (in alphabetical order) CUNY, McGill, NYU, and UBC. Among the unranked departments, I'd say it's Illinois-Chicago, Oklahoma, and Vanderbilt (since they hired Taylor). I may have forgotten a department, but at any rate I'd say that these are currently the best places to do that kind of work. You'll have noticed, though, that some of these departments aren't necessarily the best places for a continental specialization. For that, I'd give much closer consideration to Columbia, Oklahoma, UIC, and Vanderbilt. (McGill is continental-friendly, but their main aesthetician is wholly analytic.)

This is probably too late to be useful for you, but if you haven't found a place yet, I recommend getting in contact with FrontDoor! They were our landlords for the last two years... They tick every checkbox on your list (although there's a pretty decent jump in housing quality if you can push your budget from $1000 to $1100), they have a bunch of dog-friendly properties around town, and they're genuinely the best property managers my husband and I have ever had. Plus, they rent most of their properties in the Grove, and there's nowhere else I'd rather live in STL. Let me know if you have any questions, and best of luck!

My AOI's are meaning, mind, and epistemology. I also have interests in the history of analytic philosophy and the history of philosophy generally. My sample is on Kripkenstein and I'm coming from a PGR top-10 school.
I'm planning to apply to ~20-25 PhD programs (the PGR top-20, more or less, and some other programs) and 4 or 5 MA programs. NYU is the dream, but I'd be really happy with any top-20 PGR program in NYC, Boston area, or California, with a couple exceptions.

If anybody's interested, I've compiled a word document with all the deadlines and application fees of all the schools I'm applying to. Some programs haven't updated their application deadlines - for those, I included last year's deadline and made a note. This list includes all of the PGR top-20, I believe), so it might be useful to a few of you. The total cost of application fees for about 25 PhD programs and 5 MA programs is approximately $2500 ?. 

PM me if you want this document! I'm planning to give this list of deadlines (minus the app. fees) to all of my letter writers so they know when their letters should be submitted by.

I'd like to make a case for using this website's forum. There's a lot of useful information and discussion that I've found by searching and digging around in old threads. Discussion in a closed FB group won't be accessible to future philosophy applicants.
I'm not saying don't use the FB group; one could use both the forum and the group of course! However, I do think there are distinct advantages to having discussion and the like on this forum rather than a FB group.

Hey all,
I'll be reapplying to several PhD programs this coming fall.  I graduated with an MA back in 2013 and have somehow been able to keep afloat as an adjunct full time.  My interests are in continental philosophy at large with a particular focus on the philosophy of art, aesthetics, ethics, and phenomenology.  I'm not too sure what my writing sample will be, but I'll be hopefully auditing a course this coming fall and hope to produce something that will be workable for the application.  I have a fairly extensive list of programs that interest me, but some of the top schools include UC Berkley's program in rhetoric, Stony Brook, New School, Boston College amongst many others.
While I'm not excited about the application process I am happy to be going through it with others-- here's to getting to know everyone better as we do this together!  

This a thread for everybody applying this fall for admission in the fall of 2019. What are your areas of interest? Where are you planning to apply? What is your topic for your writing sample? What are your stats (if you feel comfortable sharing them)?
Also, you should all join the Facebook group called "Philosophy Graduate Entrants 2019".

This a thread for everybody applying this fall for admission in the fall of 2019. What are your areas of interest? Where are you planning to apply? What is your topic for your writing sample? What are your stats (if you feel comfortable sharing them)?
Also, you should all join the Facebook group called "Philosophy Graduate Entrants 2019".

This a thread for everybody applying this fall for admission in the fall of 2019. What are your areas of interest? Where are you planning to apply? What is your topic for your writing sample? What are your stats (if you feel comfortable sharing them)?
Also, you should all join the Facebook group called "Philosophy Graduate Entrants 2019".

AOI: moral, social and political philosophy, feminist philosophy. The (current) list of programs: Brandeis, GSU, SFSU, Tufts, UW- Milwaukee, Calgary, SFU, Toronto, UBC, Western.
Please let me know if I missed any master program that has faculty members working in my AOI.
 
 
 
 

Finishing up undergrad at a small liberal arts department with only one analytic professor. I plan on applying to every Masters program in the US with at least one person working in mind, language, and Phil of science each. I have been lurking this board for the last three years and am excited to finally be involved!