PolPhil

Take all of this with a grain of salt. I'm sure that others will disagree. Undergrad GPA is generally more important than MA GPA. MA grades are usually much higher than undergrad grades. That is, there are many people like you, with middling undergrad grades (as far as students looking at grad programs) and stellar MA grades. That being said, undergrad grades in philosophy are more important than undergrad grades overall, so you should be fine. Your philosophy GPA is very competitive. The value of an MA for admissions is not in accumulating more grades. Rather, it's in the courses you took, your writing sample (assuming that you developed it from something you worked on during the MA), and letters of recommendation (since the MA presents opportunities to work closely with profs).

Im sure that this is good advice for that program in particular, but it must be taken with a grain of salt. Different departments have different expectations. Some of the departments explicitly include in their instructions that there's no need to state your interest in the program (the fact that you are applying there already indicates your interest in the program)

Yeah I'd probably agree. They'll see from your stated interests and WS whether you're a good fit.

@PhilCoffee What do you mean? Like "I have an interest in X and X is a strength of the department"?

@Marcus_Aurelius I wish I had more time to provide hard data, and generally, I am going off of anecdotal evidence from the philosophy blogs and talking to my professors, some of whom are struggling adjunct profs (despite being at top institutions. However, I have some reservations about your argument: For one, my point is that instead of going into a PhD program, you could be starting your career elsewhere, e.g., academic administration. Sure, your initial salary would not be very high, but over the course of 5-7 years, you'd have a decent chance of earning a decent living. Given that many PhDs end up in these kind of positions anyway, you'd be ahead if you went straight into one as opposed to spending those first 5-7 years in a PhD. Alternatively, most people don't just do a BA. These days, most people do some kind of post-graduate work, often in more particular professional fields. The opportunity cost that you have to consider is not just the cost of working for 5-7 years. It's the cost of going into a new field after undergrad (which may entail more education), which most people do anyway. If you do that instead of a PhD, I find it hard to believe that your career prospects upon graduation wouldn't be significantly better than if you fail to secure a tenure-track position or some other position requiring a PhD, as so many PhDs do. You also have to account for the fact (as you mention) if you're like the large percentage of PhDs that end up in adjunct positions, you'll be living precariously, not knowing where your next salary is coming from. Most people do change career tracks, but it's not clear that they are changing tracks to enter new fields at entry level. This point is a bit subjective, but most people I would think do not tend to regard a PhD stipend as "financially secure." Sure, you know what you'll be making for those 5-7 years. But I would imagine that for most people this is a concession, not a selling point. Most graduate students that I know take out loans on top of their PhD stipend because $30,000 is simply not enough in many markets. Again, perhaps you'll only be making a similar amount at a job if you were not in a PhD, but that would likely increase significantly over those 5-7 years. I think you hit the nail on the head when you characterized a PhD stipend as an "entry-level salary." My point is that you would no longer be "entry-level" after 5-7 years. And many PhDs end up in entry-level positions anyway, especially if you're attending a non-prestigious program. Anyway, a lot of this is conjecture, and I agree with many of your points, but I'm not convinced that any optimism about PhDs as a financial investment is warranted, even assuming that most people with just an undergrad degree wouldn't be making much anyway. In part, this is because I'm assuming that you wouldn't necessarily stop at an undergrad degree if you decide not to pursue a PhD. Note that my view might be biased for the Canadian context, where most people come out of undergrad and do some other kind of (non-PhD) post-graduate work. On that note, Canada is the most educated country in the world by some metrics, so I could see how my reasoning might not apply elsewhere.

I disagree. Most people can't afford to squander 5-7 years of the time that would otherwise be the most important stage in advancing a career. When I say "squander," I mean financially. Even with a good stipend, most people come out of a PhD with PhD debt, not to mention undergrad debt. Unless you're wealthy or otherwise have good job prospects, you should think twice about going to a program where odds are very high that you will not have a job upon (or within a few years after) graduation.

Personally, I think that you should tell your story. Clearly, you overcome challenges. That is significant. We all have problems. Some of them have to do with race, class, etc., and others do not. Your challenges and your achievements in overcoming them are no less significant simply because they do not belong to the former category. For me, I'm a heterosexual dude who had a relatively comfortable middle-class upbringing. My skin is brown, but I don't feel that it has held me back in any tangible way, so I didn't mention it. I had problems early on in undergrad leading to poor grades, but they mostly had to do with laziness and a lack of direction. I chose not to mention this anywhere. They'll see that my grades significantly improved over time. I decided not to write a diversity statement. In my personal statement, I mainly focused on my academic trajectory placing me here and now, applying to phil PhD programs. I studied a few other things for 7 years before I ended up in phil, so that gave me enough to write about.

There's very little information on here that's actually indicative of your chances. GPA does not really matter very much, but your GPA in phil courses will be more important than your overall GPA. Your STEM research, publications, conferences, etc. are irrelevant, though it will probably work in your favor that you excelled in a STEM field (but this is a very minor advantage). Your extracurriculars and reading groups don't matter at all. What does matter: do you have a polished writing sample in philosophy? It doesn't need to be publication-ready, but it does need to demonstrate that you can handle the literature and craft an argument beyond what was expected of you in undergrad. In the vast majority of cases, you shouldn't even consider a paper as a potential writing sample unless you got an A/A+ on it (depending on which is the highest grade on your scale). Next, do you have 2 or 3 letters of recommendation from faculty IN PHILOSOPHY that are going to speak to your abilities as a philosopher. Generally, you only want to ask professors that you know well (at least one seminar, a research assistantship, etc.) and who gave you an A/A+ (if you took a course with them). Everything else is peripheral. Also, I don't know your life circumstances, but it might be worth looking into applying to more schools. It's normal for people with much better stats than you to apply to 10-20 programs. Like @somethingwitty said, Chicago isn't accepting applicants this year anyway. Toronto's acceptance rate is 4-5%. If I'm being honest, you seem like a much better MA applicant than a PhD applicant, so it may make more sense to focus your resources there. If you want to stay in Canada, I suggest you look at more 2-year MA programs that are funded and have great placement into PhD programs (e.g., SFU). In the states, there are also a number of funded MAs with great placement (NIU, UWM, etc.)

Tell your friends and family that the average acceptance rate at top-10 programs is 3-4%, making philosophy the most competitive discipline in academia Edit: the acceptance rates are likely to be even lower this year

If you have a really good excuse for your poor undergraduate grades, then spend some time explaining that. Otherwise, don't focus on your undergraduate grades. Emphasize your upward trajectory and sustained recent success in graduate school. Like everyone else applying to PhD programs, your writing sample and letters are going to be most important. It sounds like you'll have great letters (and they'll be expecting that from you, since you're already a grad student). I'm assuming that you have a good candidate for a writing sample too?

I would say that the difference is that there is a wider range between the competition to get into programs worth getting into at the MA level. That is, unless you're independently wealthy, it's generally not a great idea to go to a PhD program outside of the top 30. That is, even at the lowest-ranked programs worth attending, the acceptance rate is typically ~8-12%, while at the top programs it's closer to 2-4%. For funded MA programs, on the other hand, the top programs will have acceptance rates of ~5-20% (which is already a much bigger range), but other MA programs that are maybe not 'top' but do decently at placing their students into PhD programs might have acceptance rates much higher than that, e.g., 25-40%. For this reason, at the MA level, it's often a good idea to take the better-funded offer over the higher-ranked offer. Another way to think about it is that there are, at best, 30 PhD programs worth their salt (for getting you a job post-graduation), while there are more MA programs than that, often with larger cohorts, consistently placing their top students in decent PhD programs. Even though more people are applying at the MA level, the larger numbers make it less competitive, as long as you take into account that the number of applicants is inflated by students who wouldn't have made it into a PhD program.

I mean that the information is very unspecific. With no distinguishing information, every applicant looks the same.

There's not a lot to go on here. Without any distinguishing characteristics, you look like 1000 other European applicants

Simon Fraser is an amazing option. It's honestly comparable to Tufts in placement, but it's funded. UofT is worth applying to, if only because it's well funded and they have truly amazing philosophers. They recommend that international students just apply for the PhD program (direct entry), and they'll consider you for the MA as well. It's worth a shot. UBC is the second ranked graduate program in Canada, though I'm not sure about their MA placements. Like many of the other Canadian grad programs, it's likely a good quality MA. You'd for sure be able to get great recommendations so long as you merit them. Having looked at lists of grad students at top PhD programs, I have seen people from UBC, so it's also probably worth a shot, especially if it's funded (which I think is unofficially guaranteed, but you should check on that)

Writing sample and letters are much more important than GPA. They won't really care about your involvement in the department, conferences, or research, with the exception of a publication in a top journal. It's generally a good idea to aim for an MA after undergrad, especially if you don't think that you're in the top tier of applicants (top 5ish percent). It'll give you a better chance to get to know faculty and develop a strong writing sample. If you think that you have strong application, but perhaps not top tier, it's not a bad idea to throw in some PhD applications along with your MA applications. You never know when you might strike gold.

Many Canadian programs have stronger track records than some of those listed above. That includes Simon Fraser, Queens, Western, UofToronto, University of Calgary, Concordia, etc. In the US, Texas Tech also places well

At programs that require the GRE, it is very unlikely that you'd be accepted with that quant score. It's below the minimal threshold for basically any program. Luckily for you, many programs this year don't require the GRE. Even though your verbal is good, I'd recommend not sending them your score. If anything, they'll assume from your econ background that you can do math/logic. Your dissertation will be a problem, for a couple of reasons. First, I'm assuming that you plan to use it as a writing sample? Your writing sample should be a paper on which you received a straight A. Not an A-, an A. If you have a different paper to use, then you might be fine. But remember that the writing sample is arguably the most important component of your application, so it has to be top notch. The second issue is that because your background is in econ, there's little evidence that you can do sustained research in philosophy. Sure, you can do fine in courses, but can you write an article-length paper where you argue something novel? Again, you can overcome this will a truly stellar writing sample, but it's going to be tough. Keep in mind that it's very suspicious if your MA advisor is not one of your letter-writers, but at the same time, I'd be wary of having your MA advisor write you a letter, given your poor performance on the dissertation. Many people do 1 year MAs and do well on their dissertation. Additionally, many more people do 2 year MAs and do well on their dissertation. These are the people against whom you'll be competing. Are you more competitive than them?

I generally agree with the commenters above. You won't get into a PhD program worth going to. Unless you're very wealthy, it's a bad move to go to a PhD program outside of the top-50ish, regardless of what kind of prof you'd like to be afterwards. That being said, you have a strong application for MA programs, and I'd bet that you'd even get funding. Given COVID, an MA might a safe option, giving you time to re-evaluate after two years and see if you're still interested in a PhD. It sounds like your exposure to philosophy has been limited, and it's important to realize that graduate and professional work in philosophy is very different than undergraduate work. An MA will give you a taste of that.

UPenn is not accepting applicants this year You're shooting yourself in the foot by not taking the GRE. When your grades are low, the GRE is a great opportunity to show that you are intelligent, but for some reason just couldn't make good grades in undergrad. I would highly recommend taking the GRE No analytic PhD program cares about your conference presentations or co-publications Your letters might not carry much weight, given that they're from scholars with (I'm assuming) little to no contact with the scholars at the programs to which you'll be applying If you do proceed with your application, as is, then your writing sample will have to be stellar. By that, I mean it will have to be a top 5-10 writing sample out of the 200-300 writing samples that the program receives. Is your writing sample of that caliber? All in all, I disagree that your main disadvantage is your GPA. As it stands, I would be surprised if you get into a ranked PhD program (but, again, a lot of it will come down to your sample). You are much better suited to pursuing a funded MA in the US or Canada. It's quite common for foreign students to get an MA at home, then come to North America for a 2nd MA. Don't discount this option. I tell you all of this because I don't want you to waste $1000 on applications that will get you nowhere.

I would focus your attention on MA programs and more purely continental programs. Remember, the writing sample and letters are by far the most important part of your application. Your writing sample likely won't get you very far at an analytic program, given your chosen method. Your letters won't get you very far at most programs in general, because they're not from T or TT professors. I'm sure that they're great letters, but you'll be going up against students with 3+ strong letters from T faculty. That being said, they might pass at a continental department, because those are generally less competitive. Your grades and other qualifications should make you a great candidate at an MA program, but I don't see it happening at, e.g., top-50 Leiter PhD programs

I've never heard of people doing that. It's not recommended by any of the style guides as far as I know.

Yeah that's reasonable advice. The only caveat I'd add is that I know many successful applicants who sent the same 25ish-page sample to every program. This evidence is anecdotal, for sure, but not insignificant. I appreciate the level of detail in your advice, and I'm sure others do as well.

Have you actually talked to profs, people on adcoms, and successful applicants, or are you inferring this on your own? Edit: Not insinuating that you haven't. It's just that, from the conversations that I've had with these people, you're wrong. But perhaps you have better info than me!

Don't worry about the length too much. Try for 15-20. Definitely don't go under 10 or over 25. Send the same length of sample to every program.

Nah, that's not a thing