Successful Continental Topics/Samples

[dasdingy]

Hi all -

I've applied for a few years to continental-leaning schools after receiving an MA with no success. I have been waitlisted a few times, or offered acceptance with no funding others. I am wondering if those who have been successful could share what their areas of interest are and what their sample writings are about... I don't need too much detail, I'm just trying to figure out if I'm cutting myself out by using samples focused on history of philosophy (Kant, Hegel, etc) and if maybe I would be better served using something properly continental like a paper on phenomenology or Agamben. The history papers are written in a somewhat analytic style, so I am now wondering if it looks like these papers don't mesh with my interests and quite frankly look far too boring to make me stand out.

[emilydickinson]

Hey, I think that you are on the right track with focusing on Kant and Hegel because a lot of continental philosophy programs also have a strong focus on the history of philosophy (I would say that Kant and Hegel especially are pertinent to continental. Kant get very far without them!). I can’t really speak to the specifics of how your paper style would have been received, but just as an example, I did my sample on Hegel and have gotten into a few PhD programs so far. My paper was specifically about Hegel’s philosophy of history as theodicy in comparison to more conventional Christian theodicy (i.e. Augustine and Irenaeus). In some sense, it was more continental or perhaps literary in style insofar as much of it was basically biblical exegesis, but I also had to give straightforward technical accounts of Hegel’s account of the will and of freedom. My interests are definitely within the history of philosophy, especially 18th/early 19th c German philosophy, but I also have interests in the Frankfurt School and French feminism. I think the fact that you have been waitlisted and also accepted w/o funding means that your writing sample was great, but that departments are having funding constraints this year. Sometimes it just comes down to which faculty are looking for new students on which years. The dice throw of this process is infuriating, and it seems like your results so far are a good sign that things aren’t over for you yet. Best of luck! 

Edited February 19, 2021 by emilydickinson

[dasdingy]

34 minutes ago, emilydickinson said:

Hey, I think that you are on the right track with focusing on Kant and Hegel because a lot of continental philosophy programs also have a strong focus on the history of philosophy (I would say that Kant and Hegel especially are pertinent to continental. Kant get very far without them!). I can’t really speak to the specifics of how your paper style would have been received, but just as an example, I did my sample on Hegel and have gotten into a few PhD programs so far. My paper was specifically about Hegel’s philosophy of history as theodicy in comparison to more conventional Christian theodicy (i.e. Augustine and Irenaeus). In some sense, it was more continental or perhaps literary in style insofar as much of it was basically biblical exegesis, but I also had to give straightforward technical accounts of Hegel’s account of the will and of freedom. My interests are definitely within the history of philosophy, especially 18th/early 19th c German philosophy, but I also have interests in the Frankfurt School and French feminism. I think the fact that you have been waitlisted and also accepted w/o funding means that your writing sample was great, but that departments are having funding constraints this year. Sometimes it just comes down to which faculty are looking for new students on which years. The dice throw of this process is infuriating, and it seems like your results so far are a good sign that things aren’t over for you yet. Best of luck! 

Thank you for your response, it has been very helpful, and I am grateful for it.

First off - congratulations, that is exciting you have gotten in! Second - that sounds like a fantastic paper!

I do actually wonder if this might be part of it - that paper is clearly something that would be interesting to read. Examples of my papers are, for instance, discussing double affection in Kant using the standard big-deal Kantians, discussing self-recognition in Hegel using some McDowell, etc. These do seem... boring in comparison. Part of my interest here is selfish: I am also dead tired of working on boring history of phil papers when I could be doing philosophy instead of just working on making old papers as academic as possible. I have not had time to publish anything since I cannot work on new stuff and no lower level journal will publish this kind of history stuff.

I've been trying for around 5 years now, so it's not just this years' constraints. Somehow I am filtering myself right into the middle of the pile every year, but never getting out. Thank you for your help!