Stencil

Or you could, you know, be a hardworking student and just try to be the best philosopher you can be, coming from someone who's in a terminal MA.

Acceptable: Yes.
Would it be a good idea: Yes, provided you know enough about his work and have a legitimate question (and if the question 'would he potentially supervise my work' is a natural thing to ask given the flow of the conversation). No, provided you are super awkward or are literally just trying to influence the admissions process.

I don't know much about Plato, but I don't think there's anything wrong with having a narrow set of interests, provided that you can articulate them to a broader philosophical community. However, if that is the case, you should be able to demonstrate a good knowledge of the current state of scholarship and the problems people are working on. What readings are the most recent, and of those, which are standard and which are controversial? What universities have the strongest faculty working on topics you're interested in, and how do you feel about the work of various specific faculty? How has the field developed over the last 10-20 years, and where do you see this going in the future? What do you find to be the most  important books and essays on your topic published within the last couple of years? Which people in your area do you think are doing great work, and what work do you think is not so good? Those are the kinds of questions you should want to have an answer to, if you don't already. 

With regards to research interests, my sense is that Plato (if not also the Timaeus) is too narrow in one sense, but also too broad in another. Rather than honing in on an entire philosopher (or even just one work), it's often more compelling to develop an arc where you show how a small part of a person's text (e.g. a reading of term X) informs a common reading Y of their theory, and how a Z reading might avoid the problems of Y, but that Z also has its own problems, etc. That's for the writing sample. The statement of purpose will be less specific, but should nonetheless exhibit a similar kind of movement: e.g. maybe you're interested in how a specific aspect of Plato's work informs something else, or you'd like to explore how other textual tensions work to address a certain philosophical problem. Maybe there are other problems you find interesting as well. My guess is that there are enough departments with people studying Plato, that you shouldn't be worried being about ostracized because of that alone (I did run into that problem with my WS on another philosopher)—but you do need to focus on how to articulate those interests in a way that shows what kind of scholar you might develop into. 

Aside from that, I would try to solicit as much feedback as possible from faculty and grad students working on ancient philosophy. Going to conferences can be a good way to do this if you don't already have connections, and is often a good way to meet people and get a sense of how the field is progressing. 



  

 

Outsider's opinion here: it seems to me that the problem in your application is in seeing the broader picture. First off, just because you've only studied Plato so far and you think that's all you'll want to do in the future, that's a bit narrow minded. You don't know that this is true, and it's important to at least allow for the possibility that your interests will develop over time in grad school and beyond. More crucially, as scholars, we need to be able to communicate our research to others, within and outside our (sub)field; a critical part of that involves telling others why they should care about our research. In this case: why is it important/interesting to study Plato? What do we learn from doing so? How does it fit into the broader scheme -- does it influence our theories, or how we should think about anything else? If all you can say is that it's interesting to study for its own sake but you can't see any broader implication or interface with any other area of thought or life, that's indeed a very hard sell. It probably also means you haven't given your proposed area of study enough thought, because it can't possibly be true. 
I'd suggest that communicating this broader understanding is what matters most in your application. The fact that your actual current publication or classes were about Topic X aren't all that important, given that we understand that you've had limited exposure and a limited amount of time to study your subject. What matters more is how you digest it, as an indication of the kind of scholar you'll become, if and when you go to grad school. 

Also, if you post about it here afterward, it'll let you feel the all-natural high that comes with people acting like you saved their first-born child. ??

I am going to a relatively unknown LAC (~70% acceptance rate, avg 29 ACT), and was admitted to Columbia and Chicago this year. Waitlsited @ Brown, UCSD, UCLA, Indiana, and rejected at 12 or so other programs.

You might find this helpful:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/61qgeway2nyhr7x/APDA2017FinalReport.pdf?dl=0
And this:
http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2017/10/placement-in-phd-granting-program.html#more
If memory serves, the upshot was that Leiter ranking did correlate pretty well with placement and that the APDA placement rankings didn’t take into account prestigious post-docs that routinely lead to placement into desirable tenure-track jobs. But I might be misremembering. Still, that discussion and the one on dailynous are probably worth checking out. 
 

Just thought I would follow up on this: My application status hasn't changed on their portal either. I emailed the graduate program coordinator and was told that they have contacted everyone who has been accepted or waitlisted. Strangely enough, she didn't say anything about whether they've sent out any rejections yet, although I haven't seen anyone report an official rejections so far. She told me that I am "not among those being admitted or on the wait list at this time", and that "things could still change in the next couple of weeks, but for now we cannot admit you". I am taking this as an implicit rejection, since it seems like they leave a lot of people in limbo between official waitlist and official rejection each year, and as far as I can tell they haven't issued any proper rejections this year. I just wish that they would actually tell those who weren't officially accepted or officially waitlisted that they were rejected, since it seems inconsiderate to needlessly keep people in the dark for so long.

Just thought I would follow up on this: My application status hasn't changed on their portal either. I emailed the graduate program coordinator and was told that they have contacted everyone who has been accepted or waitlisted. Strangely enough, she didn't say anything about whether they've sent out any rejections yet, although I haven't seen anyone report an official rejections so far. She told me that I am "not among those being admitted or on the wait list at this time", and that "things could still change in the next couple of weeks, but for now we cannot admit you". I am taking this as an implicit rejection, since it seems like they leave a lot of people in limbo between official waitlist and official rejection each year, and as far as I can tell they haven't issued any proper rejections this year. I just wish that they would actually tell those who weren't officially accepted or officially waitlisted that they were rejected, since it seems inconsiderate to needlessly keep people in the dark for so long.

Just thought I would follow up on this: My application status hasn't changed on their portal either. I emailed the graduate program coordinator and was told that they have contacted everyone who has been accepted or waitlisted. Strangely enough, she didn't say anything about whether they've sent out any rejections yet, although I haven't seen anyone report an official rejections so far. She told me that I am "not among those being admitted or on the wait list at this time", and that "things could still change in the next couple of weeks, but for now we cannot admit you". I am taking this as an implicit rejection, since it seems like they leave a lot of people in limbo between official waitlist and official rejection each year, and as far as I can tell they haven't issued any proper rejections this year. I just wish that they would actually tell those who weren't officially accepted or officially waitlisted that they were rejected, since it seems inconsiderate to needlessly keep people in the dark for so long.

I like this one. Succinctly sums up what most of the posting here is all about. And warns new people what they're getting into. 

It fits quite well with the coffee theme of the board, and the all hours discussion. A slogan is a motto, not something that's supposed to explain a purpose.
That said, why does it need to clarify the purpose of the site? It's not like there are problems with getting new members, or with people not understanding the purpose of the site. 

TheGradCafe.com: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH

It seems like you're starting with an assumption (the slogan isn't cutting it) and then working from there. 
Perhaps you'd like to share why you think the slogan isn't cutting it?

Dear All,
Yesterday I received a response from my solicitation to Prof Sensen at Tulane. I have not been accepted there, which means that I have been shut out this season. I reckon I should have cast my net a bit wider, as I only applied to six programmes, but I am at a point at which I have accepted the fact that I am meant to be doing philosophy in other ways. For now, at least. 
I have really enjoyed your comradeship and company over the last several months. It would have been far difficult to survive this trying time without y'all. Best of luck to all beginning their PhD journeys this autumn, and bon courage to those whose lives will, like mine, take them on other paths for the time being. It's been a pleasure serving with all of you. Much love!
Misha

I solicited a status update, is that the same thing? I was told I am on an informal waitlist.

I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. There are lots of criticisms that one can make of Leiter and many of them are apt but saying that someone whose work centers on Marx and Nietzsche hates continental philosophy is just silly. (For the record, I strongly disagree with Leiter's reading of Nietzsche, but I also think it's a formidable reading that anyone working on Nietzsche needs to take into account).
 
By my count, 4 of the evaluators for 20th Continental philosophy are really Kant/19th Century scholars (Clark, Guyer, Novakovic, and Leiter) although most of them have a legitimate claim to some degree of engagement with later continental traditions. As far as I'm aware, however, the rest have some serious research interest in the period with interests ranging from phenomenology to existentialism to the Frankfurt school. A fair criticism might be to say that phenomenology, and a specific reading Husserl/Heidegger/Merleau-Ponty at that, dominate the rankings. One might also note the nearly complete absence of post-structuralist thought. But claiming that many or most evaluators aren't working the area doesn't seem to hold up. For a variety of reasons, 20th Century continental philosophy seems to produce a greater variety of opinions as to what counts as "good" scholarship that other subfields, which makes rankings here tricky. The other issue is that many of the programs strong in this area are unranked (some by choice)  and are thus listed at the bottom. From how I understand the sub-rankings, this doesn't mean they are to be understood as any weaker than the ranked programs in this area, just that evaluators weren't given a chance to evaluate them but thought that they would do as well as other ranked programs in this area had they been evaluated.
I agree that Blattner's account of a sociological distinction is much more convincing than Leiter's stylistic distinction. However, it's interesting that both accounts point towards the uselessness of this distinction, whereas many posts on these boards recently seems to be reifying it in one way or another. You're certainly right though that Leiter can't seem to stop himself from making unnecessary parenthetical remarks.

Clarification: The PGR is not useless. I can see how someone might get that from my follow-up post. I think the PGR is very helpful, but the authors should be open and frank about legitimate criticisms.
Instead of scholarly dispositions and honest acknowledgements of its limitations (in its method, or in its validity for assessing quality of program), we see Leiter's histrionic preoccupation with what people think of him and his persistent displays of winning over critics. The way he just posted his condescending Tweet exchange with a grad student reminds me of Mr. Orange Stubby Fingers's Twitter habits.

Just chiming in to agree with the last two replies. As with most things, just as it's bad to blindly accept the PGR rankings, it's also bad to blindly reject the PGR rankings (obviously, I'm not accusing anyone here of falling into either of the above camps, but people of both of those varieties are definitely out there). Regardless of how objectionable Leiter's past conduct has often been, the PGR rankings are useful and remain a fairly accurate measure of certain factors that are really important when choosing a graduate program.

I agree, and the whole point of it is to help people like us make informed decisions. I think most of us would be lost without it, especially as it relates to speciality rankings. Take it with a grain of salt, to be sure, but to act as if it’s useless strikes me as bizarre. 

I've never had the sense that there was anything particularly wrong with the Leiter rankings. With Leiter himself, that's a different issue.

I almost forgot why I came here. Accepted to Brandeis with a $20k scholarship, TAship, and fellowship nomination.

Have you already gotten in? If so, dress however the hell you want. They are trying to impress you.

I've been absent from the site due to a combination of being busy and intentionally avoiding it (I've come to believe this is an unhealthy thing for me to do, at least too frequently). I figured for accuracy's sake and for other people I should share an update on my admissions decisions.
I've been accepted to VA Tech and SF State, the former with a TAship and the latter with a teaching associateship. I expect I will decline both this week but I'm not 100% sure.
I've been waitlisted at CU Boulder, University of Virginia, UConn, Michigan State, and University of Houston.
I was also chosen by UW-Milwaukee to receive the AOP Fellowship; before I had merely been nominated by the department and it wasn't a sure thing.
I plan to decline/take myself off of waitlists for all but a few of these by the end of the month. I apologize to people who are desperately waiting to hear back from them.

Finally heard back from UConn this morning. I'm on the waitlist but if accepted I'll receive full funding as a graduate assistant. If you plan on declining an offer from UConn, please do so ASAP .
For those of you still waiting to hear back from UConn, nothing in the email mentioned whether or not they're done reviewing all applications. They just mentioned that they have finished reviewing mine and decided to put me on the waitlist.