From a Continental MA to an Analytic PhD

[HomoLudens]

Hey everyone,

I am currently attending a MA program that is predominently continental/history of philosophy. My research interests, however, are geared towards the history of logical positivism and the Kantian/neo-Kantian tradition, as well as contemporary pragmatism. I have an analytic background from undergrad, and my writing sample will be on the First Critique.

 

What would be the best way to market myself to departments who might be sceptical of my MA? Is this even something I should be worried about? I want to apply to some top-notch programs who have people working on analytic approaches Kant, even though I know my chances of getting in are low. Any advice would be helpful.

Edited July 23, 2020 by HomoLudens

[Glasperlenspieler]

10 hours ago, HomoLudens said:

What would be the best way to market myself to departments who might be sceptical of my MA? Is this even something I should be worried about? I want to apply to some top-notch programs who have people working on analytic approaches Kant, even though I know my chances of getting in are low. Any advice would be helpful.

You should make sure that a) your writing sample engages with the secondary literature written by people at the program's you're applying to and their interlocutors and that you situate what you're doing in relationship to that scholarship, and b) you should make sure that your paper emulates that scholarship in terms of style, format, approach, etc.

[PolPhil]

1 hour ago, Glasperlenspieler said:

You should make sure that a) your writing sample engages with the secondary literature written by people at the program's you're applying to and their interlocutors and that you situate what you're doing in relationship to that scholarship, and b) you should make sure that your paper emulates that scholarship in terms of style, format, approach, etc.

I second this. They won't care about which way your MA program leans if your sample is properly analytic. In general, I am told by my professors that they don't really care where you get your MA. One prof told me that he suspects that most of the advantage of an MA comes in developing a great writing sample and getting recommendations from profs, rather than the reputation of the program itself. He mentioned that it may even be a plus to have a great sample coming from a less reputable MA program, since that demonstrates true ability, as opposed to many MA students from top programs who have their hands held to some extent.

[maxhgns]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that historically-oriented and continentally-oriented departments will be friendlier to those interests than analytically-oriented departments. Pragmatism and logical positivism aren't super lively in "analytic" departments, and Kant, well. The historical distinctions aren't really a good guide to what counts as "analytic" these days.

Don't let that discourage you. Lots of top-notch departments have a strong historical bent which I'm sure will be perfectly friendly to your application. I'm just not sure that, given your interests, you're quite talking about shifting from a continental MA to an analytic PhD. Seems like it's more along the lines of pursuing historical/continental work in a top PGR department. And that's just fine and doable.

[Glasperlenspieler]

2 hours ago, maxhgns said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that historically-oriented and continentally-oriented departments will be friendlier to those interests than analytically-oriented departments. Pragmatism and logical positivism aren't super lively in "analytic" departments, and Kant, well. The historical distinctions aren't really a good guide to what counts as "analytic" these days.

Don't let that discourage you. Lots of top-notch departments have a strong historical bent which I'm sure will be perfectly friendly to your application. I'm just not sure that, given your interests, you're quite talking about shifting from a continental MA to an analytic PhD. Seems like it's more along the lines of pursuing historical/continental work in a top PGR department. And that's just fine and doable.

I think a lot here depends on one's orientation towards those topics as well as what you mean by continental vs. analytically oriented departments. When I first heard that constellation of interests, I immediately thought of Chicago and Pitt (though I can't imagine McDowell and Brandom will be around for all that much longer). I would also think about Berkeley, Brown, JHU, Riverside, and maybe Stanford. Or at the very least those are the schools I would be thinking of given the way I tend to approach those fields. Now maybe you were thinking of a place like Chicago as a continental school. Maybe, but I tend to think there's a pretty big divide in approach between these sorts of schools and the SPEP crowd.

[maxhgns]

Yeah, that's what I mean. I would think those are programs where those kinds of interests could be supported. It's not because they're analytic, though; it's because they have a strong historical contingent which includes those periods/movements. Otherwise, as far as I know, those interests (apart from Kant) are mostly only alive at straight-up SPEP programs.

[HomoLudens]

22 hours ago, Glasperlenspieler said:

I think a lot here depends on one's orientation towards those topics as well as what you mean by continental vs. analytically oriented departments. When I first heard that constellation of interests, I immediately thought of Chicago and Pitt (though I can't imagine McDowell and Brandom will be around for all that much longer). I would also think about Berkeley, Brown, JHU, Riverside, and maybe Stanford. Or at the very least those are the schools I would be thinking of given the way I tend to approach those fields. Now maybe you were thinking of a place like Chicago as a continental school. Maybe, but I tend to think there's a pretty big divide in approach between these sorts of schools and the SPEP crowd.

You are correct in interpreting my question as one about orientation. There is a big difference between Brandom/Sellarsians who read Kant and someone in the SPEP world. I prefer the former, hence my question. I also guess that the terms analytic/contiental are not really applied to history of philosophy outside of continental departments, so I should have made that clear. 

I plan to apply to places like Pitt, Georgetown, and Brown (if Guyer is still around, though is not quite so old).

I want to make clear to these schools that I am interested in their approaches. Should I just present a few research goals in my SOP that will overlap with the approaches at those schools?  

[HomoLudens]

On 7/23/2020 at 10:47 AM, PolPhil said:

I second this. They won't care about which way your MA program leans if your sample is properly analytic. In general, I am told by my professors that they don't really care where you get your MA. One prof told me that he suspects that most of the advantage of an MA comes in developing a great writing sample and getting recommendations from profs, rather than the reputation of the program itself. He mentioned that it may even be a plus to have a great sample coming from a less reputable MA program, since that demonstrates true ability, as opposed to many MA students from top programs who have their hands held to some extent.

Thanks for the advice. This is really helpful in orienting my application.

[Glasperlenspieler]

46 minutes ago, HomoLudens said:

I want to make clear to these schools that I am interested in their approaches. Should I just present a few research goals in my SOP that will overlap with the approaches at those schools?  

Yeah, I think that's a start. It's also probably ok to mention some of the scholars whose work informs your own and talk about how you situate yourself vis a vis them but also what you hope to add to the discussion. One has to be careful with that approach though. In showing what you add to the story, you don't want to inadvertently annoy the person reading it by suggesting that they're "missing" something (some people are going to be more sensitive to this than others), and you also don't want to misrepresent their views. Mentioning scholars also makes the most sense when applying to the schools where they're at. E.g., it might come off as strange if you spend a lot of time talking about how Guyer's work informs your own in your Pitt application, etc. Also, while I generally don't think that a statement of purpose should dwell too much on personal narratives, it might make sense to explain your trajectory, both articulating what brought you to your current MA program and why you think doctoral studies in a program with a different orientation is the right next step.

I think your writing sample is going to be a lot more important that your SOP. You want it to look and read like a paper written by the scholars in your field. I'd suggest reading papers by the former students of the scholars you want to work with and emulate them in terms of form, structure etc, while also making the argument as tight and clear as you can, referencing the relevant scholarship, and hopefully contributing something novel (even if small). Your ability to do that, more than your SOP, will help you get noticed by admissions committees.