shifgrethor

As someone with a BA in political science (with a focus on IR theory in a continental vein) who is currently a PhD student at a top philosophy department, I’m probably a good person to address your question. (Although I should clarify that I now work mainly in history of philosophy and am no longer specializing in IR theory or continental philosophy.) An MA is a great choice if you’re open minded and prepared to work hard to a) catch up on common knowledge you lack relative to your classmates, and b) learn the methodology of analytic philosophy (even if you’re goal is to stick to continental philosophizing, it is essential to be conversant in analytic philosophy imo). The first couple of months of my philosophy MA were stressful and busy, because I was doing as much ‘background reading’ as actual class readings. Most good profs will recommend background readings for graduate courses, which I strongly suggest you read if you’re really taking this seriously. I think it it can be a great idea to do this, and I wish you luck if it’s your plan. I never took (or audited) a single philosophy course before my MA, so it is not true that you need to do so. But you should be prepared to be a beginner at philosophy, and not assume you already know everything just because you’re fluent in the language of IR theory. Even the overlaps are often approached in radically different ways in the two fields.

Ask the faculty members if they will take you as a student. They will be honest with you, and if they say yes and then choose to retire, will continue working with you while they are emeritus. No use skirting around the issue, they know it is a concern for students. (just don't say it in a way that is insulting or judgmental)

Declined Toronto, San Diego, and Pitt. Took myself off the Stanford and Notre Dame waitlists. Hope this helps someone!

I think Philosophy Tube on Youtube has some useful videos for getting an introduction to some topics (I found their philosophy of time discussion to be helpful). Not for deep reading, but if you wanna get a lay of the land its useful.

Disagree on (3). My writing sample was pure Hume exegesis: I wrote on a relatively-forgotten passage buried in the Treatise, with no attempt to make it relevant to contemporary philosophical debates. I just tried to make the passage coherent and consistent with the rest of the Treatise. On (2), the admissions committee will know that this is only one paper, and therefore not necessarily representative of your capabilities. If it is your best work, I don't see why you should substitute it out for another paper (not to mention - by the same reasoning, wouldn't you be pigeonholing yourself into whatever field that other paper falls into?). This is why you should use your SOP to clarify what your other areas are. Don't try to cram more into your writing sample just to prove you are not one-dimensional. (1) is true, and if you're not committed to working on Kant you should definitely consider this (though as a quick aside, I was admitted to Pitt which has no one working strictly on Hume, so who knows). I do agree that there are lots of things that might be virtues for a paper/thesis but vices for a writing sample. For example: your paper should have clear philosophically clever moves that are original to you. You should also be careful not to use polarizing language or terminology. I don't want to say 'don't be controversial', but there is something to be said about not being too radical in your writing sample. It could come off as arrogance. A prof told me this when I was thinking of using a paper on Kant as my sample, which argued for a super controversial reading of the practical philosophy. You don't want the person reading it to think "who is this person to think they are better than 200 years of Kant exegesis?" So based on that I could see why your thesis might be problematic as a writing sample.

More anecdotal data, but I went to a small unranked university in Canada (it doesn't even rank among Canadian universities in most fields, including philosophy), did my MA at Toronto, and was admitted to 4 top-20 programs including NYU. So while there are definitely statistical disadvantages, the high end of the bell curve doesn't stop short of the top programs.

I'll see you at the Pittsburgh visit and we can chat more in person then! Our interests overlap a bit (mainly at Kant, history, ancient, and political/legal - I don't know much about German Idealism).

Visit the departments. If this is a possibility for you, I would honestly withhold judgment until you've seen what it's like there. You can also tell the DGS about your other offers. Sometimes a department will make their own offer better if you have competing offers.

My inference was incorrect. Just got an email from Jessica Moss that I was admitted.

Congrats! That's amazing. I'm going to assume NYU is not accepting two people with AOIs in Early Modern and Mind in the same year, so I'll happily move on to decision-making now. Finally onto the exciting part!!

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

That does bode well - I am surprised they would ask that without notifying you that you were accepted! Normally that kind of thing isn't necessary unless you've been admitted. Or do you think maybe there was an issue with your unofficial transcript?

-treatment of women, which professors are known to be dismissive/discriminatory towards women -climate for LGBTQ students/faculty

-faculty supervisor availability (is there someone with a deep connection to your AOI who is available to supervise? Are they a good fit for you? Are they friendly/kind/compassionate?) -supervisory committee availability (is there more than 1 person in or around your AOI who can fill out a committee?) -job prospects after graduation -quality of life (non-academic, ie do you like the city, cost of living, etc)

Agreed with this, except still waiting on the Early Modern specialty rankings