2021 Application Discussion Thread

[HomoLudens]

It is officially application season for 2021! The first application due dates have arrived, and with it the months of waiting and dread. I think we should get a thread going where we can discuss where we are applying, ask questions regarding specific apps, and voice concerns.

[sokratis]

Thanks for starting this thread! To kick things off, I saw a poster on another thread refer to "programs worth attending". Would anyone be willing to offer a set of criteria at which a graduate philosophy program becomes not worth attending? Perhaps if it falls beneath a certain level on the PGR? Or if it's placement statistics fall beneath a certain threshold?

[Glasperlenspieler]

5 hours ago, sokratis said:

Thanks for starting this thread! To kick things off, I saw a poster on another thread refer to "programs worth attending". Would anyone be willing to offer a set of criteria at which a graduate philosophy program becomes not worth attending? Perhaps if it falls beneath a certain level on the PGR? Or if it's placement statistics fall beneath a certain threshold?

Since I think it was me that used that phrase: the criterion I was referring to was funding. If a Ph.D. program does not provide tuition remission and a *livable* stiped, then it's not worth attending. This is both because a graduate degree in the humanities is a poor financial investment (a tenure-track job in philosophy is hard to come by and that's probably getting worse; a Ph.D. in philosophy doesn't adequately prepare you for other lines of work; and even if you do get a job as a philosophy professor, it probably won't pay enough to make paying off years worth of student loans an easy feat) and because having to find other ways to support yourself is almost certainly going to get in the way of doing good philosophy and making adequate progress towards your degree.

I think other criteria are important, but are less clear as thresholds. Placement is definitely important and is imperfectly correlated to rankings. The overwhelming majority of professors hired by top ~20 PGR programs got their Ph.D. at a top ~20 program (cf. https://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2019/11/where-untenured-tenure-track-faculty-at-the-us-top-20-programs-got-their-phds-2019-20.html). Elite liberal arts colleges tend to have similar hiring practices. Non-R1 universities are sometimes less prestige focused, so it would be a mistake to assume that people outside of the top-20 don't get jobs and there are other hiring trends once when gets outside of elite schools/R1s. (Some programs do very well at placing students in jobs at colleges in the same geographic region; Catholic universities have a strong tendency towards hiring PhDs from Catholic universities). Looking at placement rates is important, especially for lower-ranked, unranked programs (some such programs are very good at placement, while some highly ranked programs are not). If a program doesn't provide comprehensive placement data, that's a red flag. If a program isn't placing students on a regular basis (pre-pandemic), don't assume you will be the exception (especially post-pandemic). Advisors are important too. It might be the case that a certain professor does a very good job of placing their students, even if the program as a whole does not. Conversely, if all of the students getting jobs from a given program have the same advisor, don't assume you will be so lucky attending that program and writing a dissertation under a different advisor.

[wwfrd]

I'm curious as to how you all are approaching the personal history/diversity statements required by some schools. For me, a cis-het white man from a privileged background, most of the barriers that I've faced have been of my own making. 

 

I have had, however, an unusual college path, and had to drop out of my first institution and go to treatment. I'm now in recovery, have been sober for some time, etc. I am torn about whether or not to bring this up in personal history statements (for those places that require them). I worry that, by doing so, I could be oversharing, seen as privileged white guy trying to sound disadvantaged, or seen as a liability. I also worry that, in not bringing it up, I am missing a good opportunity to explain my weird transcripts, and that if my statement is bland and standard, it could be a mark against me if there's  an admissions committee member who cares a lot about these.

 

I am probably overthinking but wanted some advice. Right now it looks like only two of the programs to which I am applying require these, Berkeley and Michigan.

Edited December 7, 2020 by wwfrd

[PolPhil]

9 minutes ago, wwfrd said:

I'm curious as to how you all are approaching the personal history/diversity statements required by some schools. For me, a cis-het white man from a privileged background, most of the barriers that I've faced have been of my own making. 

 

I have had, however, an unusual college path, and had to drop out of my first institution and go to treatment. I'm now in recovery, have been sober for some time, etc. I am torn about whether or not to bring this up in personal history statements (for those places that require them). I worry that, by doing so, I could be oversharing, seen as privileged white guy trying to sound disadvantaged, or seen as a liability. I also worry that, in not bringing it up, I am missing a good opportunity to explain my weird transcripts, and that if my statement is bland and standard, it could be a mark against me if there's  an admissions committee member who cares a lot about these.

 

I am probably oversharing but wanted some advice. Right now it looks like only two of the programs to which I am applying require these, Berkeley and Michigan.

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.

Edited December 7, 2020 by PolPhil

[Marcus_Aurelius]

It's worth distinguishing between personal statement, and diversity statement (which as you note is only asked for by some programs. Transcipt anomalies can be accounted for in the personal statement if desired (as PolPhil mentions), but doesn't seem advisable to go into detail there.

Diversity statements are not really about representation. I didn't realize that when I was applying. But a successful diversity statement is about how one approaches research/teaching/etc., not about one's own identity. Some places, where the university requires one but the department doesn't care, may not even really read it. But it can't hurt to think deeply about your perspective toward performing the role of a PhD student in an inclusive way. So I'd mention your struggles only if you have something to say about how you view the academic world based on your experience. (Would you build syllabi in such a way that incorporte perspectives on addiction? Is there a paper you want to write related to treatment? etc.) But don't stress much about diversity statements. Set yourself apart philosophically with your writing sample (especially), plus your letters and statement of purpose, because your perceived philosophical potential is what'll get you in or not.

[HomoLudens]

On 12/7/2020 at 1:34 PM, wwfrd said:

I'm curious as to how you all are approaching the personal history/diversity statements required by some schools. For me, a cis-het white man from a privileged background, most of the barriers that I've faced have been of my own making. 

 

I have had, however, an unusual college path, and had to drop out of my first institution and go to treatment. I'm now in recovery, have been sober for some time, etc. I am torn about whether or not to bring this up in personal history statements (for those places that require them). I worry that, by doing so, I could be oversharing, seen as privileged white guy trying to sound disadvantaged, or seen as a liability. I also worry that, in not bringing it up, I am missing a good opportunity to explain my weird transcripts, and that if my statement is bland and standard, it could be a mark against me if there's  an admissions committee member who cares a lot about these.

 

I am probably overthinking but wanted some advice. Right now it looks like only two of the programs to which I am applying require these, Berkeley and Michigan.

If your transcripts reflect any major issue that you had during your studies, you should bring it up. Even better, have your letter writers say something about your history and how you remain a strong candidate despite your setbacks.

You bring up an interesting point that I have been considering for a while: How much should your SOP reflect the prevailing culture of identity politics?

My answer is Not at all! I have an unusual background as well (high school drop-out, 1st gen college student/grad student, working class background, etc. etc.). I don't mention any of this in my SOP, nor do any of the other MA students in my program who I have done workshops with. I think it will do more harm than good if you try to use identity as a crutch. All ad-coms care about (or at least all they should care about) is your ability as a philosopher. IMHO background/identity doesn't make you better at logic or critical reasoning (I am not interested in debating this point here). I think many philosophers on committees  won't care about your background as long as your writing sample, LORs, and transcripts are high quality.

Say what you need to say about your background only insofar as it materially impinges upon the rest of your application. 

[polemicist]

Looking for advice on this. My undergraduate degree isn't in Philosophy, so I'm applying to MA programs to transition into academic philosophy. In undergrad, I took an upper-division Philosophy course in my general area of interest as PASS/FAIL (this was a couple years ago, so it was for reasons unrelated to COVID). Should I address why I took the P/F option somewhere in my application? 

[HomoLudens]

On 12/6/2020 at 6:38 AM, sokratis said:

Thanks for starting this thread! To kick things off, I saw a poster on another thread refer to "programs worth attending". Would anyone be willing to offer a set of criteria at which a graduate philosophy program becomes not worth attending? Perhaps if it falls beneath a certain level on the PGR? Or if it's placement statistics fall beneath a certain threshold?

I am going to take a different approach to answering this than is typical on this forum. I think a program worth attending should not be a function of job prospects. Rather, you should seek to attend a school where you will be happy to study for 5-6 years and where you will get a comfortable stipend. People take the decision to attend grad school in philosophy way too seriously. In reality, we are getting paid to read books for 5 years. Just find a place where you would be happy doing this. I am only half joking, but there is a bit of truth to it.

[PolPhil]

Just now, HomoLudens said:

I am going to take a different approach to answering this than is typical on this forum. I think a program worth attending should not be a function of job prospects. Rather, you should seek to attend a school where you will be happy to study for 5-6 years and where you will get a comfortable stipend. People take the decision to attend grad school in philosophy way too seriously. In reality, we are getting paid to read books for 5 years. Just find a place where you would be happy doing this. I am only half joking, but there is a bit of truth to it.

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.

[Marcus_Aurelius]

"Even with a good stipend, most people come out of a PhD with PhD debt..." 

Do you have some evidence for this? Honest question; I'm legitimately curious. It's clear that many PhDs have debt: According to National Center for Education Statistics data, average total loan balance for PhDs not in Education increased from $48,400 to $98,800 from 2000-2016. But how is this debt distributed, particularly with reference to quality of stipend?

A PhD in Philosophy certainly isn't a good financial investment. But, for many people, it's really not a bad one. We're only talking here about good stipends, which I'll say for the sake of argument means about $30,000+. (Extra paid teaching opportunities are also possible some places.) Starting salary for recent BAs seems to average about $50,000, but that's dependent on getting a decent job, which is difficult for many. Anecdotally, I'm two years out from undergrad, and several of my friends with Humanities BAs haven't found jobs they're happy with; the pandemic made finding a job even harder. 

Someone in a PhD program with a good stipend may be pretty financially secure, depending in part on whether they have significant other costs, e.g. large undergrad debt, a family, very expensive housing market, or high personal medical expenses. Most of the costs I've just outlined are reasonably predictable at the time of admission. (It seems perfectly doable to begin paying undergrad loans on a good stipend if one's other costs are not too high; federal loans can also be deferred while in a PhD.) Anecdotally, I'm exceedingly fortunate to be making close to $40,000 this year (incl. some summer TAing and a part-time job outside the program ~7 hrs/week). I quite want an academic job, but I'm content to have to leave academia if needed, and as far as I can tell I won't be financially harmed if that happens.

Many programs have shamefully low stipends. It's a problem. So the share of programs worth attending might be pretty small, and it's likely skewed toward prestige and institutional resources. But getting a stable job for 6 years that pays a fine entry-level salary shouldn't be undervalued, especially in an economic downturn. The pandemic sucks for many reasons, but last spring I was able to find comfort in knowing I had a job for several more years that wouldn't be downsized. All of this is to say that professors should be frank with undergrads about their chances of admission to good programs. But acadmic jobs should be one criterion among several for potential PhD students; one can want an academic job without being devastated at not finding one.

I'll conclude by saying that attending a PhD program is good career experience, as is being increasingly recognized, seemingly by both employers and graduate programs. Plus people change careers a bunch of times (Boomers have held about 12 jobs, on average), so there's nothing odd about spending 6ish years on one job and then transitioning. Adjunct hell is awful, but if one is willing to go outside academia and can explain why the PhD is relevant experience, the 5-7 years aren't at the expense of other opportunities for career advancement. Odds are only very high that graduating PhDs won't have a job if you're defining "job" as "stable academic position." (I'm assuming that finding a job is at least not harder for a PhD than it is for someone with just a BA. Although a PhD can lead employers not to hire someone for being overqualified, eligibility for other jobs seems to balance out that factor. I defer to any research on the topic.) 

TL;DR: Attending a program with a good stipend is a reasonable economic choice for many. 

Edited December 9, 2020 by Marcus_Aurelius

[Glasperlenspieler]

20 minutes ago, Marcus_Aurelius said:

one can want an academic job without being devastated at not finding one.

I generally agree with what @Marcus_Aurelius says above, but I do wonder about this claim. Certainly there are such people, I'm just curious how large such a population really is. I like to think I wouldn't be devastated if I fail to get a tenure-track job when this is all done, but if I'm being honest, I'm not really sure that's true, despite my deep ambivalences about academia. The culture of Ph.D. programs is such that it often encourages one to think that a tenure-track job is the only metric of success, and this sort of thinking is, in my own experience at least, very hard to combat. 

[PolPhil]

@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.

[Glasperlenspieler]

Both @PolPhil and @Marcus_Aureliusmake some very good points here. I would add one thing though:

I suspect the relative financial security of being a Ph.D. student is going to look a lot different for single people than it is for partnered people/people looking to start a family, as well as the relative long-term desirability of either of those two life trajectories.

As a single person with a high stipend in a relatively low-cost area, who has access to extra funding in different forms (who also entered grad school without debt, but has been financially independent for a while), I'm in a pretty good place financially all things considered. But I suspect things could feel very different if I had people who were financially dependent on me.

[PhilgoreTrout]

1 hour ago, Glasperlenspieler said:

I generally agree with what @Marcus_Aurelius says above, but I do wonder about this claim. Certainly there are such people, I'm just curious how large such a population really is. I like to think I wouldn't be devastated if I fail to get a tenure-track job when this is all done, but if I'm being honest, I'm not really sure that's true, despite my deep ambivalences about academia. The culture of Ph.D. programs is such that it often encourages one to think that a tenure-track job is the only metric of success, and this sort of thinking is, in my own experience at least, very hard to combat. 

I would count myself in that category, but that's partially because my specific research interests (philosophy of machine learning, cognitive neuroscience, and philosophy of AI in general) are well represented in private industry and various think tanks. I'm considering accepting an offer from a slightly lower PGR ranked school (Cambridge HPS) because their direct ties to industry research seems like it might offer better job prospects compared to the chance of landing a TT job with a PhD from even the very top ranked programs. 

Edited December 9, 2020 by PhilgoreTrout

[Marcus_Aurelius]

@PolPhil I agree about non-PhD postgraduate programs, and how a PhD doesn't help career prospects much if one goes into one of those. On the other hand, many of those programs are expensive (e.g. law, social work, education), so a few years out of undergrad can help one figure out if one wants to spend that money, and (ideally) save a bit, though that's dependent on situation, including the factors I mention above. That's definitely unfortunate to hear you know lots of people who take out loans on top of $30,000 stipends. 

@Glasperlenspieler Totally agreed; that's why I included family factors above as one of the (largely foreseeable) points that should affect grad school economic decisions. Can also apply to, e.g., caring for aging parents. I don't want grad school to be a place where families are discouraged (and indeed, being a grad student parent seems to be gaining more acceptance), but it's undeniable that it's tough to be one, and someone who deems parenthood/partnership as sufficiently important should take that into account. 

[PhilCoffee]

A (often discussed, I suppose) question about statement of purpose: if one does not go very specific about faculty members' research, is it still a good thing to mention the general strengths of a program? Or, will that look to the committee like doing only very superficial research about the program?

[PolPhil]

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

[PhilCoffee]

@PolPhil Well, something like that. Like "The department is strong in (some) my areas of interest, and is also strong in X, Y and Z which I feel excited to learn more about in grad school". I hear from one of my letter writers that this mentioning is too general to be helpful at all.

[Marcus_Aurelius]

Mentioning specific details about the program or professors likely won't help, but it very probably won't hurt. I recommend mentioning some details based on basic research, but no need to go too in-depth or to stress about it. 

[PolPhil]

5 hours ago, PhilCoffee said:

@PolPhil Well, something like that. Like "The department is strong in (some) my areas of interest, and is also strong in X, Y and Z which I feel excited to learn more about in grad school". I hear from one of my letter writers that this mentioning is too general to be helpful at all.

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

[SmugSnugInARug]

On 12/12/2020 at 7:02 AM, PhilCoffee said:

A (often discussed, I suppose) question about statement of purpose: if one does not go very specific about faculty members' research, is it still a good thing to mention the general strengths of a program? Or, will that look to the committee like doing only very superficial research about the program?

The advise I was given from two separate grad acceptance committee directors is to NOT mention specific faculty members. Focus instead on the general strengths of the program.

They gave several reasons:

1. If a particular faculty member currently has enough students, is secretly retiring, or even just not on the committee, you can hurt your chances.

2. If, say, you mention Kant but only mention 1 of the 2 Kantians on the faculty, you might slight the other professor. The annoying reality is that this is just a part of the process. This was emphasized to me as the most important of the reasons.

3. Unless you are actually familiar with said professor (from recent conferences, actually being familiar with their work, or other professional contexts), you might misjudge or mischaracterize them. This is apparently quite common.

[Happybuddha]

On 12/12/2020 at 5:02 AM, PhilCoffee said:

A (often discussed, I suppose) question about statement of purpose: if one does not go very specific about faculty members' research, is it still a good thing to mention the general strengths of a program? Or, will that look to the committee like doing only very superficial research about the program?

I attended a philosophy workshop for prospective graduate students at a PGR top 5 school and here are some of the notes I have listed from a faculty panel of admissions committee members (including former chairs) and some of it sort of contradicts the advice offered previously:

- when speaking about the “1st pass” of applications in which they get rid of about half of applicants, they said the statement of purpose plays a large role, and they advised us to “convey that you want to be in at that specific school” 

- another of my notes from this panel says “connect your philosophical interests to faculty/dept. at school” 

Here’s what I did to try and balance this with the advice that it can be risky to list faculty members who are retiring/leaving/etc.:

- I always listed at least three faculty members who are tenured and have recently advised dissertations in the last couple of years (unless no info was available)

- I always made to sure to mention that there are several professors I would love to work with, and am only mentioning a few to at least try and avoid offending anyone.
 

- I made sure to actually research each professor’s work so it wasn’t just me generically copying what their interests are on the website. I looked at their books, recent articles, and what they were currently working on, and tried to give specific examples of where a professor’s particular work aligns with my research interests. 
 

- don’t think you have to do any of the hardcore research, since if it helps my application it will be marginal, but I do think at least mentioning the specific strengths of the department shows that you are interested in that school specifically. And if you have the time to spend a couple hours researching professors’ work in more depth (provided you are satisfied w your sample and other elements of your application), it can also be really nice for you to be able to get a picture of exactly how good a fit each department might be given your interests. 

Edited December 14, 2020 by Happybuddha

[PolPhil]

11 hours ago, Happybuddha said:

I attended a philosophy workshop for prospective graduate students at a PGR top 5 school and here are some of the notes I have listed from a faculty panel of admissions committee members (including former chairs) and some of it sort of contradicts the advice offered previously:

- when speaking about the “1st pass” of applications in which they get rid of about half of applicants, they said the statement of purpose plays a large role, and they advised us to “convey that you want to be in at that specific school” 

- another of my notes from this panel says “connect your philosophical interests to faculty/dept. at school” 

Here’s what I did to try and balance this with the advice that it can be risky to list faculty members who are retiring/leaving/etc.:

- I always listed at least three faculty members who are tenured and have recently advised dissertations in the last couple of years (unless no info was available)

- I always made to sure to mention that there are several professors I would love to work with, and am only mentioning a few to at least try and avoid offending anyone.
 

- I made sure to actually research each professor’s work so it wasn’t just me generically copying what their interests are on the website. I looked at their books, recent articles, and what they were currently working on, and tried to give specific examples of where a professor’s particular work aligns with my research interests. 
 

- don’t think you have to do any of the hardcore research, since if it helps my application it will be marginal, but I do think at least mentioning the specific strengths of the department shows that you are interested in that school specifically. And if you have the time to spend a couple hours researching professors’ work in more depth (provided you are satisfied w your sample and other elements of your application), it can also be really nice for you to be able to get a picture of exactly how good a fit each department might be given your interests. 

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)

[Happybuddha]

2 hours ago, PolPhil said:

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)

Absolutely! Unfortunately what is preferred for one department makes no difference or could even be looked down upon at another. For example, at this department they were interested in hearing about teaching experience, but some programs that are focused more on developing researchers might see that and think you’re not a good fit. So it’s a crazy tight rope walk to try and please everyone the best you can and there’s just no way to know which admissions committee members prefer what. 
 

That’s why for those of us who are not financially supported enough to attend one of the top undergrad programs (and who didn’t want to take out huge loans), there’s always an element of luck involved even for those people with straight As, an amazing sample, great letters, etc. When you are a solid applicant from a fine-but-not-amazing school and you need to stand out among the Princeton and NYU grads, you can never be exactly sure what will do that for you. And it definitely seems like what makes someone stand out to one adcom will be vastly different for each department (and perhaps even within the same department from year to year).

That’s why I am not a particular fan of people saying that luck isn’t involved in this process. If the formula is “go to an amazing school, get the best grades, write a publishable sample, and get letters from famous tenured philosophers who adore you,” then people often don’t realize the luck that was involved in making those conditions come about, even when combined with hard work. One might be lucky that they are financially privileged enough to get into a top school, to have known they wanted a PhD before applying, to have the privilege to not work to pay their way through school, to wind up in a department with people who love them, etc. To say otherwise is to deny the disconcerting role that both systemic oppression and academic elitism play in PhD admissions. Yes, the people from the best schools with the best samples may always get in, but it took a lot of factors outside of those applicants’ control for those conditions to be possible. 

Sorry this is a bit tangential to the topic! I just wanted to vent a bit and put this out there for anyone trying to push the “there’s no luck involved” narrative, which I have seen promulgated by several people on this forum over the last year (and I can’t help but wonder if they are privileged cishet male-identified people who don’t really understand the luck involved in getting them to where they are).