Importance of Non-philosophy Classes in Grad Applications

[Quellafore]

Hello, I've been wondering the importance of undergraduate classes I take that are irrelevant to philosophy in my grad applications. These classes are generally like introductions to Calculus, Statistics, Physics, Molecular Biology etc. These classes are, unfortunately, "obligatory" classes in the curriculum and I have to take them in one way or another. The problem is I hate these classes and can't find any good motivation to study them except their possible effect on my future applications. Consequently, I get relatively bad grades like Cs and lower Bs from some of these classes which slightly lower my GPA from nearly 4 (my philosophy classes are all As or A+s) to 3.7 - 8. So, what do you think about the negative effect of such classes on my chances of getting acceptance from some top-ranked universities?

Thank you for all of your comments.

[kretschmar]

GPA is one of the most important components of your application. Though many programs claim that more emphasis is placed on philosophy coursework, overall GPA cannot escape notice. Besides, every candidate that a reputable program considers will be academically excellent accross the board; this is why the general advice is to have as close to a flawless profile as you can. 

Especially if the area of philosophy you are considering has a quantitative aspect, e.g. logic, philosophy of math/science, then your undergraduate science grades will be a major liability.

Philosophers, especially analytic ones, respect few other academic disciplines as being equally demanding as theirs. Science and math, however, are thought of as academically respectable. So grades in those classes are important. 

[Glasperlenspieler]

While @kretschmar makes some good points, I think I would disagree with the overall force of the comment. If your cumulative GPA remains above 3.7 and and your philosophy GPA is really a 4.0, then I think your grades are high enough that your application would get a serious look, assuming everything else is in order. Philosophy grad admissions are notoriously competitive, so that's no guarantee of anything. However, I don' think you will be rejected merely because you had some poor grades in non-philosophy classes (with the possible exception that you want to specialize in philosophy of science or a particularly technical subfield). Generally speaking, I think the quantitative aspects of your application are what make sure you get past the first cut. After that, they don't admit students because of good scores but because they think that will be successful graduate students in that program and, eventually, successful philosophers.

[lyellgeo]

8 minutes ago, Glasperlenspieler said:

While @kretschmar makes some good points, I think I would disagree with the overall force of the comment. If your cumulative GPA remains above 3.7 and and your philosophy GPA is really a 4.0, then I think your grades are high enough that your application would get a serious look, assuming everything else is in order. Philosophy grad admissions are notoriously competitive, so that's no guarantee of anything. However, I don' think you will be rejected merely because you had some poor grades in non-philosophy classes (with the possible exception that you want to specialize in philosophy of science or a particularly technical subfield). Generally speaking, I think the quantitative aspects of your application are what make sure you get past the first cut. After that, they don't admit students because of good scores but because they think that will be successful graduate students in that program and, eventually, successful philosophers.

Agree with this. Another thing to say is that, if you are worried about your GPA in quantitative classes, having a good math GRE (160+) can also help to alleviate some of those concerns in the initial round of cuts. 

[maxhgns]

I basically agree with the others--as long as your CGPA remains high, it's not a big deal unless you're planning on working in philosophy of science.

Do remember, however, that as a grad student you'll take lots of classes you hate or don't care about to fulfill distribution requirements. And there'll be a logic requirement, too. It's absolutely crucial that you do well in those, because they will affect your standing and ability to secure all kinds of funding (including postdoc funding). Plus, you often have to send all your transcripts as part of your job application package.

Finally, FWIW, I don't think it's at all unfortunate that those classes were required. A liberal arts education is supposed to offer a basic foundation in science and mathematics. You don't have to have perfect grades, but it's really important that you have that foundation, and it will be especially important if you get a PhD. Especially in philosophy, since it touches on so many other disciplines, where far too many of us (and I include myself!) are arts students. I've spent quite a bit of time catching up over the last few years, as science and mathematics have become increasingly relevant to my research and teaching, and as my own interest in them grows. I should have spent more time on them as an UG.

[kretschmar]

No doubt the above responses are correct: a few lower grades in non-philosophy coursework are relatively minor blemishes. I would maintain, however, that given the option to voluntarily study more and get good grades in such classes, or to neglect them out of disinterest, it seems obvious that the best advice is to get good grades. That seems to me to be the choice implied in the original post. Any aspect of one's application that can be improved should by all means be improved.

@Glasperlenspieler - while an applicant might not be rejected merely for having bad grades in non-philosophy coursework, certainly an applicant interested in top-ranked PhD programs should avoid having a C on her transcript, in any class. Again, the original post seems to concern best practices for a current undergraduate student.

Furthermore, as @maxhgns rightly noted, the willingness to work hard at arbitrary tasks is actually quite relevant to graduate school success. Especially if there's significant disparity between someone's philosophy and other coursework, committees might see reason for concern about commitment.

 

 

 

 

Edited January 13, 2018 by kretschmar

[lyellgeo]

6 hours ago, kretschmar said:

No doubt the above responses are correct: a few lower grades in non-philosophy coursework are relatively minor blemishes. I would maintain, however, that given the option to voluntarily study more and get good grades in such classes, or to neglect them out of disinterest, it seems obvious that the best advice is to get good grades. That seems to me to be the choice implied in the original post. Any aspect of one's application that can be improved should by all means be improved.

@Glasperlenspieler - while an applicant might not be rejected merely for having bad grades in non-philosophy coursework, certainly an applicant interested in top-ranked PhD programs should avoid having a C on her transcript, in any class. Again, the original post seems to concern best practices for a current undergraduate student.

Furthermore, as @maxhgns rightly noted, the willingness to work hard at arbitrary tasks is actually quite relevant to graduate school success. Especially if there's significant disparity between someone's philosophy and other coursework, committees might see reason for concern about commitment.

 

 

Yeah, I agree with this as well. If the question is whether you should work hard to earn an A in those courses, then yes, you should.

Other than that, there are maybe some other things that might affect how they read the transcripts:

-how reputable your undergraduate institution is 
-how recently the poor grades were (senior/junior grades will likely matter more)
-how advanced the courses were

In my own case, I had a a poor semester a few years ago, with one C in Russian and a B- in Calc II and another philosophy course. At my previous undergrad institution (a religious school), I also had some poor grades in religion courses (these weren't academic courses but were required due to the religious nature of the university, and I couldn't bear to take them.) Aside from my first semester after transferring in 2013, it's been nearly all As, with straight As over the last couple of years.

Are the early poor grades enough to sink my application? I don't know, maybe. I didn't bother mentioning the bad semester in my personal statement, though I guess I could have. It felt more important to use the space to explain and articulate my research interests and how they match onto the specific programs I'm applying to. But it's also worth nothing that I didn't really apply to "top ranked" (at least in the top 20) programs, and I applied to several other MA programs as a backup. Anyway, just my thoughts as I'm new to the process as well. 

Edited January 14, 2018 by lyellgeo