TakeruK

I've done back to back as well as 3 in a row, but never 4 in a row! One thing that made it less stressful for me though, was that we don't do interview visits in my field, just recruitment ones (i.e. student is already accepted). I did three in a row when visiting Canadian MSc programs in 2010. They were all in Eastern Canada (I lived in western Canada) so it was more convenient for me to just fly out there, then take trains between places. Luckily for me, I did this during my reading break (and since my town was hosting the 2010 winter olympics, we had a 2 week reading break!). I planned my own visits by calling the schools and asking if I could visit during this time (most of these programs had visits for each student separately, at whatever time that works). So because I was able to plan my own visits a little, even though the visits were back-to-back, there was one day that was the meet-everyone-and-talk-for-8-hours-straight day and the other day was the explore-the-city-and/or-do-social-things-with-students day. Having that "off" day in between helped space the interviews out. I did two in a row when visiting US PhD programs. There were two programs that only had funding for part of my flight (flying from Canada is expensive!) so I asked one school to move my visit so I could do them back to back. Again, the visits in my programs tend to have one intense day and one less-intense/more-social day, so that helped make it not so bad. Another way to think about it is to pretend you're attending a conference! Conferences are fun but they are very tiring. For me, conferences tend to be 5 full days (8am to 10pm) of being "on it", seeing talks, networking, talking to colleagues and collaborators etc. So a back-to-back visit isn't that different. You can do it! Other, more logistical things that might help: - drink lots of water! I usually try to find a grocery or convenience store close to where I'm staying the first night and buy some bottles of water right away - have snacks handy. you can pack them, or buy them when you buy your water above. have sweet things for an energy boost and things like granola in case you miss a meal or something. - get sleep! the days are very full. you may be tempted to try to get some homework or other work done at the end of the day, but remember that while on these visits, your priority is the visit! choose sleep over catching up on missed work, in my opinion - if it helps you, make plans that avoid extra stress: maybe get to the airport a little earlier than usual - if reasonable, pay a little extra for less stress: if the price difference is small and you're not a morning person, consider choosing a flight that leaves a little later in the day instead of 6am, for example Good luck!!

This also irks me. Teaching is something I do enjoy, but, like fuzzy said, I am not sure if I would enjoy a position that has a 4-4 load. I also know that it's not something I can just pick up. My school is notoriously bad at teaching---we only founded a Center for Teaching and Learning about 3-4 years ago. And, the majority of faculty applications here do not even ask for a teaching statement or teaching philosophy. The director for our Center for Teaching and Learning is a wonderful person that has incredible abilities to slowly build up the Center and get faculty on board to actually care about teaching. It's a long and hard fight. I've done as much as I can to get as much teaching experience and training possible here. I just finished the only course that our school offers in the research behind University level STEM teaching and learning. I helped plan and run sessions at the most recent Teaching Conference (day-long TA training during orientation). I ask my TA supervisors to allow me to prep and deliver the lecture for 1 week of their courses. But in my entire degree, I would have only TA'ed a total of 3 or 4 10-week courses. In my Masters program, a typical TA load for just one year is the total TA load in my PhD program. In addition, the professors only teach two 10-week courses per year, which is why there isn't enough TA work to distribute! So this adds to the anti-teaching culture at the school. I've also started to go outside of the school to do some teaching/outreach type work in the community, but the limitations of my international work visa makes this tricky (I cannot take paid work, and some places want responsibility of employed workers, not volunteers). As I wrote above, in some ways, since my program is so focused on research, I should make sure I get the most out of the things my program is strong in. But since the teaching development opportunities are so limited, I can at least try to do everything that is offered and hope it will do me some good later on. Maybe I'll never be qualified to teach at a teaching-intensive school, but I can at least learn more about why teaching scholarship is important and not be a part of the anti-teaching culture that some schools tend to have!

Not sure if I mentioned it earlier, but my advisor is a younger faculty member. They arrived about 1 year before I did. I also asked similar questions to other professors on my committee, and I purposely chose committee members with expertise in different techniques but also at different stages of career so I can get the best advice! I think this "pressure" is very real, especially at R1 schools too. Some people have the mindset that if you don't end up on the TT at an R1, then you've "failed". Of course, this is nonsense! But I also learned something interesting at a mentoring event at a recent conference. Students mentioned that we often never hear much from professors about support for non TT R-1 careers. Professors responded saying that it's not as simple---they are concerned/afraid that if they suggest a non-TT R1 career to a student, the student would interpret it as a message saying "you're not good enough for academia"! So, sometimes it might be a good idea for you to initiate the conversation. But keep in mind that by definition, the majority of the faculty member found success in this career path only, so they might not be the best place for advice for other positions. The whole legacy thing is certainly important. In my field, it's typical to form lifelong collaborations with your PhD advisor, and even if you don't directly collaborate anymore, students that stay in research will help spread the legacy/name of the advisor. But, while having some students continue to do this is important to the advisor, I don't think you should feel the responsibility to contribute to the legacy just because they advised you. I think a good advisor will want what's best for you and they know that not every single one of their graduates will do the same thing. There are so many ways to find success! And finally, just an anecdote on advisor support for non-academic careers. My advisor has a lot of grad school friends who found work in other fields (e.g. finance etc.). In our talk about future careers, my advisor was very supportive of whatever is best for me, and also offered to put me in contact with their non-academic graduate school friends if I wanted to pursue those career paths! I've also met professors who were not supportive at all, but I just want to point out that there are good people out there that will support you and you can find them

I don't want to derail the thread too much but also don't want to just ignore your question, so here's a short answer: As a sophomore, saw a talk by a senior presenting her honours thesis (about asteroids) --> emailed that senior's advisor to ask about working with him (on asteroids)--> a few years later, did my own honours thesis on asteroids --> found out that asteroids are just a small part of a big field of planetary science --> went to a big conference all about planetary science --> decided to do PhD in this field --> learned that planets-around-other-stars are a really exciting part of planetary science!

Personally, I would advise to remove the "I need it as quickly as possible" part from the email. You already said the deadline has passed, so it's clear what you are asking. Just my thoughts.

Upon reflection, I think you are definitely right about this being a gendered advice. I'm male so I have not heard any advice like this directed at me, but it would be naive for me to assume that because I didn't hear it, that everyone else in my field also did not hear it. I think it was silly/naive of me to write that paragraph, thanks for pointing this out

@stillconfused: Thanks for answering my questions I agree that all humans have depth, and it doesn't matter whether they are a PhD student, a stay at home parent, a Starbucks barista, whatever. I don't like it when people define me by what I "do" so I try hard to not do the same to others. I'm glad to learn that these questions are a good way to show/imply that I value the other person as a human and that I take interest in their thinking! As you said though, I'll probably have to reserve these questions for someone I know a little more since I don't think I can pull this off with a stranger (even if it's just one of the questions) without being awkward. But this is more of a reflection on me than the other person

I do agree that if the advising style works for the student then it doesn't really matter. And I also agree that an advisor can be very unresponsive to emails but a great advocate for you in all other ways. And it's definitely true that you can't expect a professor to spend time on a prospective student the same way they would for a current student! My main objection from my original post is that I don't think it's a good thing for academia to "normalize" unresponsive faculty behaviour. I don't think a prospective student should count their blessings and consider themselves "lucky" to even get a simple email reply from the faculty member! But the opposite is also true---it's not reasonable for a prospective student to expect that a faculty member to take time away from their own duties to respond to every email. What I mean is that I would object to both considering an email response to be one of either extremes! The "fit"/compatibility between advisor and student is so important. I think that it's a good idea to go with your "gut response" to how you feel about your interactions with someone. For the OP's case, it is clear from their posts that they do not enjoy their interactions with this person and it's not just the lack of email response. When I see that, I think it's important to acknowledge that it's okay to 1) talk to other professors and 2) decide to not work for someone you don't enjoy interacting with even if they are the best person in the field.

This is a really common thing in Canada because the Masters and PhD programs are separate programs and it's pretty common for a MSc student to apply to the same school for their PhD. This means that you usually need to get a LOR from your current advisor too! Awkwardness for everyone! Two things that I think could help to keep in mind: 1. Phrasing like what rising_star suggested are great. Definitely take extra time to tailor the SOP to your own school. Don't just use your standard template! 2. Think of this as a "due diligence" step. The reason that we do this in Canada is that if the department ever gets audited on its admission decisions, it needs to show that your application did get accepted based on merit, not because you're there for your Masters too. I find this is helpful to overcome thoughts like "ugh this is so useless" and other awkwardness that come from the fact that you are saying things the admissions committee already knows. Write your application so that it will still be strong even if the committee did not know you.

I certainly agree with your sentiment! And I think the original poster got a lot out of the 3 pages of conversation here. I am addressing the example questions here though: personally, I feel they are way too intense for casual conversation. I mean, these sound like they are interview questions! If a stranger asked me these questions, I would not want to answer them. I would feel really uncomfortable to have to think this deeply about myself and my values when I'm supposedly at a party wanting to have a good time! So, this was interesting for me to read. Personally, I would find it really impolite for someone to ask me these questions at a casual social setting, so I would never ask this to anyone else. But, it sounds like these are questions you would enjoy answering. I'm curious to learn more: what is it about these questions do you enjoy? Do you feel comfortable answering these Qs at a casual social event? I mean, I know that each person is different and I'm not asking you to speak for all stay-at-home moms, for example; but I'm just curious to know what about these questions that you like, personally. If you don't mind?

I have not decided on a path yet, so I can't help much from personal experience. But I am at a R1 now and I recently asked my advisor the same question: When did you know you wanted to be at an R1? My advisor's answer sounds a lot like your current situation. They said they did not want to primarily be a teacher (I would say my advisor is one of the best teachers in the department and one of the best I've ever encountered, so this is not due to lack of ability!) because research is where their passions lie. And, in order to do the research they want to do, it's only the R1 schools that have the money and telescope access (as Eigen also mentioned). I've never heard of or been told that it's not possible to be on the tenure track and married. Maybe this is a big difference in field though. In my field at my school, almost all of the newest tenure track hires are married and most of them have children. My school supports faculty-parents (and to a lesser extent student-parents) really well. I believe faculty who take parental leave have the option of extending their tenure clock without penalty. I think my field would normally say the best time to have children would be during your postdoc or at the beginning of the tenure track. I don't think the culture is that much against grad student-parents but realistically, we do not get paid enough to afford children during grad school. But good postdocs in my field will pay $50k-$60k or more, so the income doubles! --- If it helps, here is my current thinking: I am one year away from being on the job market. I don't know if I want to end up at a R1. I do know there are different "intensities" of R1 though. I know that I don't think the life of a faculty member at my current school is something I would enjoy. Ultimately, I think location is more important to me than what I'm actually doing, so I do have pretty strict geographical constraints on my final career. But until then, I am aiming for postdocs at top research institutions. My reasoning is because: 1. I'm at a very research intensive school and I have so little opportunity to teach and develop those skills. This would make it really tough for me to compete for teaching positions. So, I figure that since I'm at a R1, I should take advantage of what it offers and play to my strengths. I would probably be better off in the job market overall if I spent the time here ramping up my research instead of getting mediocre teaching abilities. I should say that I really do enjoy teaching, and maybe I enjoy it even more than research. However, I'm at the wrong place to really develop these skills (although I do take advantage of whatever opportunities that come up). 2. Since I'm not sure if I want to be in academia, I think research ability is more transferable outside of the university setting than teaching abilities. 3. If I'm going to do a postdoc, based on life goals and priorities, I'm seeking a minimum postdoc salary that can support that. The salaries I'm looking at generally are attainable with prize fellowships or at places with enough funding to pay a postdoc this much. This does limit the field to mostly postdocs at R1 institutions.

I think you should send both sets, unless your pending AW score is really different (e.g. below 2 or above 5). I don't agree that math/science programs care more about your Q score. I've heard repeatedly from faculty that, for native English speakers, the GRE V is a valuable metric.

In case it can be helpful to you in later applications or to other readers: 1. Most schools do not have applicants rank their LORs. I remember from my applications that most schools say that the ordering of the letter does not matter and they will all be weighted equally. So, if the requirement is 3 letters, then your application is complete once there are 3 letters. 2. Since all LORs are weighted equally, at least in my field, I get the sense that there will be one "average" evaluation made by reading all of your LORs. So, unless there are 4 that are exactly equal, it's rarely a good idea to submit more than the requirement. That is, if you could give LORs a score out of 100, if you have a 95/100, a 90/100 and two 80/100 letters, it's still better to submit the 95, 90 and one 80 (average = 88) than to submit a 4th letter that is also a 80 (average=86). Of course, this is not really how it's done, just an analogy. 3. Finally, in general, perhaps at many points in undergrad and earlier schooling, going above and beyond the requirements was considered a good thing. But starting in grad school, going beyond the requirements is generally neutral and has more chances to hurt you than help you. One example is this application mixup---the first three letters submitted might be the ones considered, and having 4 people means there is a chance that your best letter(s) are not read. Another example is during examinations such as quals or candidacy---I see students get penalized by trying to answer a question in more detail than asked. If you give more details than asked in the exam, you might say one or two wrong things (along with several correct things) but you'll still lose points because you said wrong things. One would be better off just answering the specific and exact question asked by their committee. Similar ideas apply to graduate coursework too.

Mine doesn't either and in most places that is true. (This is what I wrote to the OP above). But that's not always the case. There was one professor in my last department that asked their students to clock in and clock out of the lab and requires students to work a certain number of hours and days per week. Also, TA work in some places is an hourly position (e.g. in Canada), not a salary position, so we do have to be careful to log our hours. I think that for TA work, this is actually a good thing because it puts a price tag to our labour ($40/hr). So, departments and professors cannot just ask students to do everything possible. With only so much money (and thus time) allocated for each course, the professor must think about what is the best use of the TA resources they have and then assign duties accordingly. This also makes TA work more fairly distributed too---TAs that have to be in the lab for the lab courses usually get assigned less grading work because their in-lab hours count towards the contracted limit. So, every grad student, no matter what TA assignment is paid the same amount of money for the same amount of time worked. And it means the department and professors respect the fact that grad student labour isn't free!

It's complicated because there are many different definitions used by different programs to gauge progress towards different goals! For one very common definition (I believe the term is "under-represented minority"; URM), they only apply to American citizens, as kaykaykay points out. In many applications, you are asked the citizenship/PR question first, and you only answer the minority question if the first response is "yes". The definition of a URM is strictly these five categories: African Americans, Mexican-Americans, Native Americans (American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians), Pacific Islanders, and mainland Puerto Ricans. So, I know that my school is required to report numbers of students, postdocs, staff and faculty in these categories because of US national law. However, that's just one definition for one reporting responsibility. Just because you don't fall under this definition does not mean that the school does not care about you! The way my school's administration puts it: they care about both human diversity as well as the legal definition. By human diversity, they care about attracting and supporting international students (our population is over 40% international). They care about the different needs of students with families. They care about the LGBTQ community. These are just some examples. I can't speak for every program and school, but I know that at my program and my school, faculty and administrators are approaching admissions with the goal of ensuring that we are welcoming and supportive of all types of diversity. We want our graduate student population to be reflective of the world, not just certain majority groups.

I think the original question was referring to office hours in the sense that hours spent working in the office, instead of the office hours that a TA or professor may hold for a specific course!

It's hard to know what "in review" (or any of the statuses, really) actually means. I think rising_star is right that if they are going to be inflexible on this, then unfortunately you are out of luck, even if the 4th letter gets in before the deadline. I would say the program has no obligation to review the 4th letter because 1) you hit submit on the application and 2) all application materials are complete. The deadline is the last day you can submit an application, it's not the same as "committee will review everything submitted before this date". However, as others pointed out, "in review" does not necessarily mean that the committee has reviewed the materials. It could mean that it is now available for access. The automatic "in review" email could also be sent as soon as someone downloads all of your materials to their computer. In fact, I think it's very unlikely that faculty directly access your applications. I would imagine that the staff will download all profiles and then sort the materials in whatever order (and link up transcripts etc.) the admissions committee wants. So, one reason why they say they don't accept further files after review starts is because if you want to change/add something, they will have to go back and redo all of this, which takes a lot of time and energy. So, there is a "point of no return" where your application cannot actually be changed, and it's not clear that being "in review" status means you have actually crossed this point. I would imagine the point of no return varies a lot from each school depending on the amount of application and staff available (it could be as soon as you hit "submit" or it could be as late as the first admissions committee meeting). Finally, note that if your "in review" status email is an automatic one, then a lot of what it says might not even be true because they might have been sent by some system with boilerplate or have outdated information. You may just have to hope for the best! For the future, if you have additional applications to go and only 3 letters are required, I would only submit 3 letters. Having extra letters is generally not a good thing (I'd say a 4th mediocre letter would bring down your LOR "score"). Or do not submit your application (i.e. pay the fee etc.) until the letter(s) you really want arrives (the danger is that you need to pay/submit before deadline but letters can still arrive post-deadline). If you are able to change this for any schools with due dates after the 15th, I'd highly recommend it!

This is tough. When I TA, I always try to make grading as transparent as possible. This means I provide grading rubrics where appropriate and ask the professor to make sure the syllabus shows a breakdown of the course grades. When a student approaches me about their grade, I pull out all of the rubrics and assignments and show them where their work fell in the rubric. It's usually hard for them to argue something like "I think my paper is an A" when I can point to the rubric columns showing that their work is a "B" on the rubric, for example. Sometimes I do make mistakes though and I will gladly adjust grades if I did. However, I never regrade in front of the student and I don't let students try to make an argument for a different grade. That is, when I pull out the rubric, I am doing so only to demonstrate where their work falls on the rubric. I do not give them a chance to argue for a higher grade by showing me why their paper met the "A" column etc. This is not fair because I am not allowing all students to argue for themselves in this way and I don't want to give advantages to students who are taking extra time to argue for grades. If the student still does not agree with the grade once I show them the rubric, I will say "Okay, I will reconsider your grade and let you know". And, then I will spend whatever appropriate amount of time later re-grading their work (If there is no reason to regrade, I won't). The second situation is even tougher! I think you really have to follow policy in this case, and I hope you are able to explain this to the student. However, it sounds like the policy isn't very good at your school! It sounds like it's easy for a group to force (through inaction) one of the group members to do most of the work and then the other 3 can just say they all worked on it equally. But you also don't know the student you're meeting isn't stretching the truth either. Looking forward, maybe you can talk to your professor/boss about a better way to manage group work and distribution. Some things you could do, but only if they are appropriate given your existing policies, is to ask to meet with all of the group members. Maybe get them all to meet you at the same time in the same room and then ask them to write on a piece of paper, without talking, the parts that each of them worked on. But taking actions like this could be inappropriate---make sure you talk to your professor first. At my current school, there is an independent review board that conducts investigations like this, so the right policy at my school would be to report the case and turn over all evidence to the review board.

I know it's really hard to form relationships with professors. And I usually notice that professors form better relationships with students who are more similar to them. I think it's something that the faculty in general need to work on, to be aware of any potential unconscious biases in their interactions. I'm not saying this to discourage you, but for you to know that it's not necessarily something wrong with you either. However, I also have more practical and more immediately useful advice! Yes, going to more socials and events will be helpful. At these events, make an effort to talk to professors instead of your friends. Think of ways that will make this fun/rewarding for you. Maybe your friends are also feeling the same way so you can all encourage each other to go up to a professor you haven't talked to before. Or, you can make it a general rule that you can't go to your friend group until you've talked to at least one professor. You can even keep each other accountable---don't let a friend join a group unless they have talked to some professors. Note: This is a common problem that many students face, at things like conferences as well---the point of these things is to go and meet new people but it's hard to get out of our comfort zone of hanging or sitting with our friends all the time. Sometimes, everyone in the group wants to get out of their comfort zone but it takes one person saying they are going to do so to make a difference. Also, find help in your friends. You say that the profs do talk to some of your friends. Talk to these friends and other senior students and ask them to help introduce you next time. So, the next time your friend and your prof is standing around at a social event (e.g. a cocktail hour or something), come up to their group. If you've talked to your friend beforehand, this would be their cue to say "Oh, Professor X, have you met my friend, bookofkels_?", etc. Finally, I just want to say that you go from knowing very little people to knowing a ton of people very fast. Exponentially! This is because once you know one or two professors, they will likely introduce you to other professors too, etc.

I don't think these stats are readily available? And it's hard to guess at overall numbers since each grad student here probably only runs into a handful of other students who take leave. I think the stats also vary a lot based on the reason behind the leave. For example, some students take leave because they need to be away from school for a few months or a year in order to sort something out / attend to another priority (e.g. sick parent, medical leave, etc.) The students that I know who do this almost always come back. Usually the length of the leave is set ahead of time and the student makes plans to start reconnecting and coming back as the leave near the end. Another type of leave is for the student to take a break and determine whether or not they want to continue in graduate school. Sometimes, there is a set end date for this leave but sometimes not (well, not a fixed one, it might be something that gets re-evaluated every semester or something). In these cases, since one of the reasons for the leave is that the student may not want to continue, it makes sense that out of the students I know who have taken this kind of leave, most of them do not return (note that these are very small numbers though). Overall, I would say that if the school and the student want to return, it's very likely that the student will be able to return from the leave. As for "catching up", I don't think it really works that way. Most places think of leave as hitting the pause button. So, if you were a student for a year, then took a year off, then came back, you would be treated as a 2nd year student. There might be a little bit of time to get back into the swing of things, but it's not like you are still expected to be at a 3rd year student level when you return after a 1 year leave. (Just using example numbers). You should also treat yourself as a second year student! I don't think it's a good idea for students returning from leave to try to make up for the lost time as if nothing ever happened.

I disagree with Joan Callamezzo, even though this might be "typical", it doesn't mean you have to put up with it. Also, this kind of reaction only further perpetuates the problems. I have known plenty of big name professors who are not this way (either as their student, or their collaborator, or knowing someone who worked for them). My advice is to stop contacting this prof that won't be a good fit for you and immediately start contacting the other professor. If you like the other professor, indicate that they are your top choice (it's up to you whether or not you want to indicate the first prof is a choice even---if there's no way you would work with them, then don't bother). If the second person isn't good either, then just drop the school.

I think there's a difference between "not useful" and "overly hyped". All of the attributes and qualities that the professor writes about you would still be true. However, they will likely be very positive and optimistic and as such, the professor might not want the student to read it and feel like they were the best person ever! If you could read all of the letters that the prof wrote, then you can put your own evaluation in context, but this won't happen for you. On the other hand, the admissions committee does see a lot of letters, so even if each letter is more positive than realistic, they have the context to evaluate it. Also, I agree with the unique insight perspective presented by @thatsjustsemantics. This is what makes LORs important to an application. But having been on the "other side" of search committees (although different field than yours), I've seen how references really are just another "data point" and while they might appear high on a ranked list, I don't think the differences between the ranks is as high as I once thought.

In my field, this is totally acceptable and very common. I agree that it's best to just say that you want to stay an extra day to see the city. I did this for as many of my schools as I could. Sometimes when I asked to do this, the school also offered to cover some of the extra expenses, or at least let me use the school's discounted rate for hotels etc. I don't think it's a bad thing to say that you are visiting relatives in the area on the extra day. I just wouldn't say it in the request because it's irrelevant. But if you are asked at the interviews, in my field, it would be just fine. Grad students do this all of the time and it's okay as long as 1) the different flights cost the same or 2) you pay the difference. For example, at both of my conferences in Europe (school paid), I stayed an extra week (my spouse flew out after the conference was over and we had a holiday). And, just last week, I didn't fly directly home after a conference, but instead, flew to visit my family in Canada, then flew home. I submitted all of my plane ticket costs for reimbursement, along with a quote for a direct flight between conference & home---the school will reimburse me up to the cost of the direct flight (and because I took advantage of a sale, my trip is cheaper than the direct flight, so I'm going to get it all reimbursed). I also don't think it's a bad thing if you are going to visit another school, however, you must tell the school about this if you do! I'm not saying you're going to visit another school, just responding to a scenario by iphi. It's very acceptable to combine multiple school visits in one trip because it saves everyone money. You just have to be honest about it and find a fair way to split the cost between the schools (i.e. you don't want one school to pay for all of the costs to a visit to 2 schools). Asking for special requests is not a big deal, at least in my field. For one school, I asked for my visit to be moved to a different weekend so that I could visit two schools in the same trip. I thought it meant I would have to visit by myself (which would not be ideal) but there were a couple of others that asked for the exact same thing.

From my (brief) experience looking into online courses that will count in the same way as my previous "brick and mortar" courses (i.e. appear on a transcript, count for degree credit etc.), yes, it does appear that the majority of these courses will require some kind of proctored exam, either at the University itself or a nearby University. But I don't know if this is true 100% of the time---it's up to you to reach out to these schools and ask. So far, I think one major challenge of online courses is finding the best balance between the rigor of accredited classes and the flexibility of taking an online course. The difficulty of this balance makes it tough to get something that meets your request on both sides.

No. It puts the faculty member in a really weird place if the faculty member wrote the letter intending for you to not read it (as expected). If they say no to your request, then it will could make it look like you don't trust that they wrote a good letter. If they say yes, then they would be doing so because saying no is awkward and it may annoy them that they felt the pressure to say yes when they didn't want to. There's no good way for it to end, in my opinion. I think that if the faculty member wanted you to see the letter, then they would have showed it to you. Let them initiate. I do agree with you that there is value in a "debrief" of sorts after you finish your degree program where you can find out your strong and weak points. However, this does not require you to read their letter of recommendation. Instead, you can just set up a time, just before you leave the school, to talk with your letter writer and ask them what they think are your strengths and weaknesses. Don't surprise them with this---make sure you ask them well ahead of time and make it clear that you are hoping to get feedback on how to improve as a philosopher before you leave your undergrad school! You should give them time to think about it between your meeting request and the meeting. Note: You may not be able to do this with all of your letter writers---depending on how well they know you and how invested they are in your success. For some of my best mentors, they initiated this conversation near the end of my time with them and it's advice that have helped me a lot as I transitioned to grad school. I'm just saying that this is a big commitment on their part, so you can't necessarily expect it from everyone. Finally, I would say that this type of conversation is far more useful to you than being able to read the letter. This allows for a dialogue rather than the monologue of the letter. In addition, the letters are usually overly hyped, in that positive attributes are often presented enthusiastically and it should be a glowing endorsement. While it's nice to read such nice things, reading only glowing endorsements do not help you grow and improve. A conversation with your mentors/advisors can address small but important weak points that aren't usually put into a glowing letter of recommendation.