chance of getting into a phd?

[lamirada]

All phd applications are turned in, and we are in the waiting game. I applied to 20 schools (mid to top tier). But now I wonder how my profile really looks to the admission committee and want to hear some honest opinions. I already got rejected from WUSTL.

 

Undergraduate GPA: 3.31 (Major GPA: 3.43) -- from one of the top public universities in US

MA GPA: 3.87 -- from one of the top 10 programs on PGR

I didn't take GRE since most schools did not accept it or made it optional.

I showed my writing sample to 5 professors, 1 postdoc, and 1 classmate. The general reception was very positive. I had to revise here and there. But the comments ranged from "good," strong," and "solid" to "really good." The topic is on McDowell. So, naturally, I applied to programs where professors work on related topics.

No research or publication experience. But I worked as a lecturer and a TA for one year.

There's no way I can tell whether my letters are strong. But two of my letter writers were on my thesis committee and the other writer was my professor for one semester (I got A in his class).

On my SOP, I mentioned and explained two research interests (primary and secondary). And I mentioned in average 4-5 professors I want to work with in detail + if necessary, a few more whose work I am interested in.

 

Looks like this year cycle is tough, and there are so many candidates whose profiles look much stronger than mine. I just want to know what ppl think how likely (or unlikely) I will get in--so that I can start planning my next step I guess. It's a bummer that I already heard from WUSTL and they rejected me. (But I understand that, of all 20 schools I applied, WUSTL is farthest from my research interest.) It's kinda scary that I haven't heard back from other schools that already began sending emails to their first rounders. Overall, I want to know how things look like for applicants like me, who--GPA-wise--didn't do well in undergrad, but show an upward trajectory that ended up decently well -- whose research interest is in no traditional branch of epistemology (since conceptualism is a controversial view).

Edited January 30, 2021 by lamirada

[Outer Heaven]

It is tough to tell, we all have our strengths and weaknesses. The chance that someone with a 4.0 can get rejected is too high. So, anything can make you look good or bad.

[PhilCoffee]

The top students with the strongest writing sample usually get into top PhD programs, so it may be helpful to compare your materials, especially the writing sample, to your classmates'. But given your description, you'll be fine.

[lamirada]

A further question is that: I mentioned two interests in my SOP (primary and secondary). Most of the schools I applied to are good fit for my primary interest. And my writing sample is precisely on this primary interest, which I spend my entire MA career to do research on. Also, most of the professors I mentioned in SOP primarily work on topics related to this interest. On the other hand, my secondary interest is something I developed very recently and it comes from the one class I took from the third letter writer. The primary interest is in epistemology, and the secondary is in ethics/philosophy of law. So, I don't think the schools I applied to (or at least the professors I mentioned in SOP) are great fit for my secondary interest. In SOP, I did mention that I think there is a connection between these two interests and that is something I would like to dig in more. What do you think the schools' perception on my SOP is going to be? That is, do you think my mentioning of my secondary interest (in the way I did--i.e., as something I see connected to my primary interest in epistemology) is going to harm my profile? Or, do you think the admission committee would just skim through it since it is my secondary interest after all (--an interesting side project I have in addition to my professional research)?

[PolPhil]

2 hours ago, lamirada said:

A further question is that: I mentioned two interests in my SOP (primary and secondary). Most of the schools I applied to are good fit for my primary interest. And my writing sample is precisely on this primary interest, which I spend my entire MA career to do research on. Also, most of the professors I mentioned in SOP primarily work on topics related to this interest. On the other hand, my secondary interest is something I developed very recently and it comes from the one class I took from the third letter writer. The primary interest is in epistemology, and the secondary is in ethics/philosophy of law. So, I don't think the schools I applied to (or at least the professors I mentioned in SOP) are great fit for my secondary interest. In SOP, I did mention that I think there is a connection between these two interests and that is something I would like to dig in more. What do you think the schools' perception on my SOP is going to be? That is, do you think my mentioning of my secondary interest (in the way I did--i.e., as something I see connected to my primary interest in epistemology) is going to harm my profile? Or, do you think the admission committee would just skim through it since it is my secondary interest after all (--an interesting side project I have in addition to my professional research)?

Admissions committees typically don't pay too much attention to statements of purpose, other than to get a sense of your interests. I wouldn't think too much about that. It's really all about the writing sample and letters of recommendation.

[lamirada]

3 minutes ago, PolPhil said:

Admissions committees typically don't pay too much attention to statements of purpose, other than to get a sense of your interests. I wouldn't think too much about that. It's really all about the writing sample and letters of recommendation.

I see. Thank you for the explanation. Yeah, I am generally confident with my writing sample (and hopefully the admission committee will feel the same about it). Just a lot of uncertainty and luck elements in the application process, I guess...

[PolPhil]

2 minutes ago, lamirada said:

I see. Thank you for the explanation. Yeah, I am generally confident with my writing sample (and hopefully the admission committee will feel the same about it). Just a lot of uncertainty and luck elements in the application process, I guess...

Absolutely. Acceptance rates will be around 1-2% at top programs this year due to increased applications and fewer admissions, so, more than ever, it's a lottery. Good luck!

[HomoLudens]

28 minutes ago, PolPhil said:

Admissions committees typically don't pay too much attention to statements of purpose, other than to get a sense of your interests. I wouldn't think too much about that. It's really all about the writing sample and letters of recommendation.

As the Germans say, "jein". This is anecdotal, but the admissions director at my program reads statements first. Obviously it isn't make or break if you have a mediocre sample, but if you aren't able to effectively state why you want to do a PhD at "school" beyond the typical platitudes, then you don't have a chance. Having an interesting statement might make the committee member look closer at your application. 

The moral I take away from applying is that the kind of questions being asked on this forum are typically the wrong ones. People shouldn't be ask whether they can get in based on stats x, y, and z and vague statements like "my sample is super good". The real question is, "how can I make my application better. 

[PolPhil]

Just now, HomoLudens said:

As the Germans say, "jein". This is anecdotal, but the admissions director at my program reads statements first. Obviously it isn't make or break if you have a mediocre sample, but if you aren't able to effectively state why you want to do a PhD at "school" beyond the typical platitudes, then you don't have a chance. Having an interesting statement might make the committee member look closer at your application. 

The moral I take away from applying is that the kind of questions being asked on this forum are typically the wrong ones. People shouldn't be ask whether they can get in based on stats x, y, and z and vague statements like "my sample is super good". The real question is, "how can I make my application better. 

I'm sure that they all read the SOP first. That doesnt mean that the SOP plays a large role in the decision

[lamirada]

6 hours ago, HomoLudens said:

The moral I take away from applying is that the kind of questions being asked on this forum are typically the wrong ones. People shouldn't be ask whether they can get in based on stats x, y, and z and vague statements like "my sample is super good". The real question is, "how can I make my application better. 

Thank you for your input. Just wanted to clarify that I am not merely trying to ask whether I will get in based on x, y, and z. I did my best in preparing my application (although, of course, there is always something to improve). Given that I did the best I could at the time, I am just wondering how it would look like to admission committees. My confidence in my sample is rather humble. I offered the best knowledge I have + I just mentioned what others commented on mine (to mitigate my self-deception). In this way, I thought I could describe my sample from a more objective point of view.

In regard to how effective my SOP is, I tried my best to articulate the specific research approach I took and why--without sounding like a McDowell-maniac. It was a difficult balance to maintain. And I tried to apply to programs that have professors working on McDowell, conceptualism, or at least something related. Hopefully, what I did is sufficient although there is no way to tell. (That I get into a program is a sufficient, but not necessary, condition to conclude that I did alright.) I guess we can all only hope at this time of the year and pray for grace on top of the best we tried

Edited January 31, 2021 by lamirada

[quineonthevine]

I think you have very good chances. You have very good grades from a well-regarded MA program, and your writing sample is on a well-known contemporary philosopher, so plenty of professors at each school will be in a good place to evaluate it. (That's better than a relatively obscure sample topic, imo.) It is very difficult to get in anywhere, of course, but I'm confident you'll end up somewhere you're excited about. Good luck!  

Edited January 31, 2021 by quineonthevine

[aristotleonchipotle]

No, nobody has 'very good' chances. Even the very best of all applicants have slim chances of gaining admissions to programs (especially mid to top tier). Philosophy graduate school admissions are largely a crapshoot and a lottery at this point, more so this year due to the reduced admissions and increased applicants. You are giving the OP a false hope by saying that the OP has 'very good' chances. Nobody can be sure that any given one particular applicant will end up somewhere one is excited about. This is just the cold hard truth. In my opinion, it is better to realize this rather than to 'expect' any kind of good result out of the admissions cycle. Just expect that you will get shut out, and if you get into a program, then congrats! You lost nothing. But if you expect that you'll get an acceptance and you get nothing, then you will remain frustrated and depressed. 

TL;DR: Don't give the OP false sense of hope. 

Edited January 31, 2021 by aristotleonchipotle

[Outer Heaven]

29 minutes ago, aristotleonchipotle said:

No, nobody has 'very good' chances. Even the very best of all applicants have slim chances of gaining admissions to programs (especially mid to top tier). Philosophy graduate school admissions are largely a crapshoot and a lottery at this point, more so this year due to the reduced admissions and increased applicants. You are giving the OP a false hope by saying that the OP has 'very good' chances. Nobody can be sure that any given one particular applicant will end up somewhere one is excited about. This is just the cold hard truth. In my opinion, it is better to realize this rather than to 'expect' any kind of good result out of the admissions cycle. Just expect that you will get shut out, and if you get into a program, then congrats! You lost nothing. But if you expect that you'll get an acceptance and you get nothing, then you will remain frustrated and depressed. 

TL;DR: Don't give the OP false sense of hope. 

I sadly agree 

[quineonthevine]

11 hours ago, aristotleonchipotle said:

No, nobody has 'very good' chances. Even the very best of all applicants have slim chances of gaining admissions to programs (especially mid to top tier). Philosophy graduate school admissions are largely a crapshoot and a lottery at this point, more so this year due to the reduced admissions and increased applicants. You are giving the OP a false hope by saying that the OP has 'very good' chances. Nobody can be sure that any given one particular applicant will end up somewhere one is excited about. This is just the cold hard truth. In my opinion, it is better to realize this rather than to 'expect' any kind of good result out of the admissions cycle. Just expect that you will get shut out, and if you get into a program, then congrats! You lost nothing. But if you expect that you'll get an acceptance and you get nothing, then you will remain frustrated and depressed. 

TL;DR: Don't give the OP false sense of hope. 

I'll clarify -- yes, we know that admissions are an incredibly difficult process, but OP has basically just as good of a shot as any of us at getting into a program. Their GPA is competitive and so is their writing sample. I'm giving OP positive feedback because others on this thread are being very negative about their chances, which really isn't helpful IMO, especially because it discounts that OP *does* have a strong background. I fail to see how pointing that out gives OP a "false hope". But I agree that we should all not put our eggs in one basket, and expect the worst, since PhD admissions are notoriously difficult in our field. (This is common knowledge, though.)

[aristotleonchipotle]

48 minutes ago, quineonthevine said:

I'll clarify -- yes, we know that admissions are an incredibly difficult process, but OP has basically just as good of a shot as any of us at getting into a program. Their GPA is competitive and so is their writing sample. I'm giving OP positive feedback because others on this thread are being very negative about their chances, which really isn't helpful IMO, especially because it discounts that OP *does* have a strong background. I fail to see how pointing that out gives OP a "false hope". But I agree that we should all not put our eggs in one basket, and expect the worst, since PhD admissions are notoriously difficult in our field. (This is common knowledge, though.)

I would like to reemphasize, that *nobody* has very good chances, regardless of their background. Therefore, whether the OP has a strong background or not is irrelevant here. It is a crapshoot and a lottery for pretty much everyone. Of course there are certain threshold that a ‘strong’ applicant shall surpass, and perhaps you were trying to say that the OP probably is above that kind of threshold to be considered a competitive applicant. But I don’t think that’s equivalent to saying that the OP has a very good chance. I do appreciate your positivity but it is just not true that the OP has a ‘very good’ chance. That is all

[quineonthevine]

18 minutes ago, aristotleonchipotle said:

I would like to reemphasize, that *nobody* has very good chances, regardless of their background. Therefore, whether the OP has a strong background or not is irrelevant here. It is a crapshoot and a lottery for pretty much everyone. Of course there are certain threshold that a ‘strong’ applicant shall surpass, and perhaps you were trying to say that the OP probably is above that kind of threshold to be considered a competitive applicant. But I don’t think that’s equivalent to saying that the OP has a very good chance. I do appreciate your positivity but it is just not true that the OP has a ‘very good’ chance. That is all

This is pedantic and unnecessary. I said what I said, and I wasn't "trying" to say anything else. If 300 applicants apply for 5 slots at a single school, that's about a 2% chance of getting into a given PhD program -- but OP is applying to 20. Of course, that percentage doesn't factor in applicants who have bad grades, or an underdeveloped sample, or not the best letters. Since OP is a strong candidate, I think they have a very good chance of getting in somewhere. This is merely one opinion among many in this thread. 

But my original comment did not imply that OP will certainly get in somewhere, so I don't see what point there is in beating a dead horse. It's common knowledge that PhD admissions in our field is very difficult, and nobody can be certain they will get in. That doesn't mean OP should feel demoralized, especially since they are clearly a strong applicant.

[Potato Cactus]

Whenever I touch a jalapeño there's only a 2% chance I won't end up in a shower trying to freeze hell above my knees. It's a crapshoot; but by golly I'll take a confidence boost if I'm given one. 

[aristotleonchipotle]

7 hours ago, quineonthevine said:

This is pedantic and unnecessary. I said what I said, and I wasn't "trying" to say anything else. If 300 applicants apply for 5 slots at a single school, that's about a 2% chance of getting into a given PhD program -- but OP is applying to 20. Of course, that percentage doesn't factor in applicants who have bad grades, or an underdeveloped sample, or not the best letters. Since OP is a strong candidate, I think they have a very good chance of getting in somewhere. This is merely one opinion among many in this thread. 

But my original comment did not imply that OP will certainly get in somewhere, so I don't see what point there is in beating a dead horse. It's common knowledge that PhD admissions in our field is very difficult, and nobody can be certain they will get in. That doesn't mean OP should feel demoralized, especially since they are clearly a strong applicant.

Alright, if we are getting into the territory of 'this is my opinion,' then I have nothing more to say about it. However, please note that there are many over-qualified candidates getting shut out every year regardless of the number of schools that they applied to. Further, according to MtnDuck's survey results, 20 is not necessarily a high number of schools that one applied to at least this cycle, since it seems like the average is around 16-17. I will just rephrase and reemphasize my opinion once again: I  think that nobody has a very good chance of getting in anywhere, whether that be an undergraduate from Harvard or a community college graduate. A strong applicant does not necessarily have a very good chance of getting in somewhere because of the extremely highly competitive nature of the admissions process, more so this year than ever. 

I respect your opinion that the OP has a very good chance of getting into somewhere. I personally strongly disagree, but who am I to speak about this. 

[thescientificmethod]

This argument about whether OP has a good chance of getting into a program really shows why we're philosophers huh? I have no strong opinion about whether OP has a good chance or not, but just a reminder to keep it civil  Also spare a thought for OP who is assured that he has a good chance and then immediately refuted...and now is probably rather confused. 

[Potato Cactus]

6 minutes ago, thescientificmethod said:

just a reminder to keep it civil  Also spare a thought for OP who is assured that he has a good chance and then immediately refuted...and now is probably rather confused. 

OP has my condolences. Hopefully s/he/they take comfort in the unwavering objectivity of my jalapeños. 

[HomoLudens]

As I mentioned above, the problem lies in the very idea behind threads like these. We see them crop up constantly on here. The best advice is to stop worrying about chances viz. statistics and markers like GPA, and instead ask whether your sample/statement are up to snuff. I honestly think we should ban threads like this (no offense to OP) because they are literally useless speculation. 

[lamirada]

Perhaps I should rephrase my question to settle the conflict here.

I guess my question comes down to this:

Take my GPA and school background as the premise. Assuming that I did write my SOP in the way I described above, given that I have such GPA and school background, do you think that my application has a decent chance of passing the filtering process and of getting read by the admission committee? I do agree that once one makes into the top 50 applicants or whatever, a lot of luck plays into it since different committee member has a different standard. And, at this stage, even the best of the best (in terms of numbers and stats) just have the same chance as every other 50 applicants. But it seems that there is some objective standard an applicant needs to meet in order to pass the filtering even to have his/her application read.

I think that my writing sample is good enough to gather at least some attention from some professors working on the relevant topics once I pass the threshold. And I think that my SOP does up to some degree address my interests quite well (regardless of whether they are good fit for the programs I applied). I am just worried that my application will even make it to the stage where it will be read in a way it deserves. I am aware that my GPA is not particularly high, compared to other candidates. And my undergrad GPA is actually low. But it would be very depressing if my undergrad GPA determines my future against my MA grad or the knowledge I gained since then--that is, if my application doesn't even get read properly simply because I have no 4.0 GPA or I didn't graduate from Harvard or so. To me, it sounds fair only if the threshold is only moderately high. But it seems people have different guesses precisely about what constitutes this "moderately high."

No matter how good my writing sample is, if they will simply pass over my application just because I don't have 4.0 GPA or something, I feel like I wasted my last 6 months + $2,000 and perhaps should stop trying at all. I just wanted to whether that depressing projection is the reality (whether we are deceiving ourselves under the motto "GPA doesn't matter, GRE doesn't matter, Writing Sample and Letters are the best!") Perhaps I am writing this thread because I am very anxious and want to hold onto the myth of writing sample (if it is a myth after all). Yet, I think many grad applicants feel the same way and just wanted to open a discussion about it.

[UndergradDad]

Undergrad GPA, even for those going directly into Phd from undergrad, does not seem to matter beyond a certain threshold, and I don’t mean 3.8 or 3.9. Quite a few with a 3.8 and even 4.0 get shut out completely from Phd programs. Undergrad pedigree (meaning also who your letter writers are), and writing sample are far more important, if a perusal of the past results board and comments from previous applicants are any indication. 

[lurkingfaculty]

Admissions committee member here. I agree that there is no point to these sorts of posts or responses to them. Every admin committee makes decisions differently. In my dept there is no "threshold" you have to pass, though, and I doubt there is in most departments. We read every application. (Really.) We don't read all of every application, but we would definitely read your transcripts, cv, personal statement, letters, and at least skim the first five pages or so of your writing sample before putting anyone in a "no" pile. We don't do a "first pass" where we toss a bunch of people out on the basis of grades or anything like that. I personally don't care about grades at all unless they are bad in philosophy courses or there is some unexplained downwards trajectory. (Though fwiw I hate to say this, but a 3.87 is not a great GPA for an MA, and places that do care about grades will not be super impressed by it. It's not bad, but it is not particularly impressive since the grading scale in grad programs is much different than in undergrad courses. It is far less impressive than a 3.87 undergrad GPA is, imo.) Skimming your writing sample could lead me to examine it more closely even if your grades are terrible and your letters aren't great. If you're a terrible fit for my department, I'm less likely to spend tons of time on your app. If you are a great fit for my department, I'm more likely to spend more time on your app. If you have an unusual background (e.g. community college, long breaks in your education, etc.) I'll likely completely ignore grades regardless of how bad they are from early on in your education.

Some people care about grades a lot. Even within admin committees there will be disagreement about this. It could be, for example, that the "first pass" works by the committee dividing the apps among them and each coming back to the first meeting with a list of 10-15-20 names they want to consider more closely. In those kinds of cases probably each member of the committee is using a totally different set of criteria to make that list. It will just be luck how they divided up the alphabet, or whatever.

I do think that the only real close-to-universal thing there is to say here is that your writing sample matters above all else. I think that is true in nearly every department. Perhaps some departments will throw you in a "no" pile without taking even a glance at it, but my guess is they only do that if at least a couple of the following conditions are met: you don' thave a really strong background in philosophy, your letters are lukewarm, your grades are bad, your personal statement is weird or bad, etc. (The applications I spend the least amount of time on are people who just obviously have no philosophical background or very little. Apply to MA programs if you are in that position.)

[Potato Cactus]

2 hours ago, lurkingfaculty said:

 (Though fwiw I hate to say this, but a 3.87 is not a great GPA for an MA, and places that do care about grades will not be super impressed by it. It's not bad, but it is not particularly impressive since the grading scale in grad programs is much different than in undergrad courses. It is far less impressive than a 3.87 undergrad GPA is, imo.)

 

Hi lurkingfaculty, I've always appreciated your insight on this forum; I am sure I speak for everyone when I say please continue lurking here and commenting. 

*small vent coming, asking for preemptive excusal and understanding; I know you probably have the same feelings as me.* 

I worked my tushy off to get a 3.86 in my MA. It really sucks to know that the best that I can do is not impressive. This is especially so when a GPA in a PhD generally does not matter; all that matters is if you meet the minimum and get your degree. (If I am more naive here than what I have learned about for PhDs, please excuse my inadequate tushy.)